Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:39:22 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
Mine here is in: /etc/portage/package.mask It's been there for a
long time. Maybe they are moving things again to something new but
it works here.
>>> Things that override global settings in make.conf, lik
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 03:39:22 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> Mine here is in: /etc/portage/package.mask It's been there for a
> >> long time. Maybe they are moving things again to something new but
> >> it works here.
> > Things that override global settings in make.conf, like package.mask,
> > go i
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:47:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> Mine here is in: /etc/portage/package.mask It's been there for a long
>> time. Maybe they are moving things again to something new but it works
>> here.
> Things that override global settings in make.conf, like package.
On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:47:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Mine here is in: /etc/portage/package.mask It's been there for a long
> time. Maybe they are moving things again to something new but it works
> here.
Things that override global settings in make.conf, like package.mask, go
in /etc/portage. Th
cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>> Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
>>> newest version at each upgrade.
>>>
>>> As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
>>> `package.provided' is meant for such things.
>>>
>>
Dale wrote:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
> > I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
> > newest version at each upgrade.
> >
> > As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
> > `package.provided' is meant for such things.
> >
> > The syntax is not described in
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 22:55:30 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
> newest version at each upgrade.
>
> As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
> `package.provided' is meant for such things.
No it's not. package.provi
Dale wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
>>> newest version at each upgrade.
>>>
>>> As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
>>> `package.provided' is meant for such things.
>>>
>>> The syntax is not
Dale wrote:
> Harry Putnam wrote:
>> I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
>> newest version at each upgrade.
>>
>> As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
>> `package.provided' is meant for such things.
>>
>> The syntax is not described in detail...
Harry Putnam wrote:
> I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
> newest version at each upgrade.
>
> As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
> `package.provided' is meant for such things.
>
> The syntax is not described in detail... I tried these:
>
>
I'd like to stay on kernel-4.1.6, rather than keep installing the
newest version at each upgrade.
As I recall, and a quick look at `man portage', a file named
`package.provided' is meant for such things.
The syntax is not described in detail... I tried these:
/etc/portage/package.provided
>
On 22 December 2006 09:03, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> package.provided is not there for that purpose. It's there for cases
> when a package should be present but portage hasn't installed it (like
> highly custom kernels) and you don't intend for portage to ever install
> it either. But portage insists
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:36:59 +0200, Uwe Thiem wrote:
> > package.provided is intended for use when you install something
> > without portage - it's your way of telling portage the package is
> > installed even though it's not in the database.
>
> What is that good for? Say I write my own app (l
On Thursday 21 December 2006 19:36, Uwe Thiem wrote:
> On 21 December 2006 18:40, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > package.provided is intended for use when you install something
> > without portage - it's your way of telling portage the package is
> > installed even though it's not in the database.
>
> Wh
On 21 December 2006 18:40, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> package.provided is intended for use when you install something without
> portage - it's your way of telling portage the package is installed even
> though it's not in the database.
What is that good for? Say I write my own app (like the one my si
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:04:33 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> Archive a portage tree by all means. But if an ebuild is removed that
> a user want to keep, the solution is so simple it's amazing. Copy the
> ebuild to /usr/local/portage in the correct directory structure. I
> mainta
On Thursday 21 December 2006 18:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the event user runs with ~ARCHITECTURE flag set then masking won't
> do it... right?
Wrong.
Masking says what portage should include as installable. Look inside an
ebuild and you will see lines like
KEYWORDS="~ppc sparc x86"
Th
This section is snipped one of Allen M. posts on the monster gentoo
health thread (last paragraph is where my topic starts:
[...]
Archive a portage tree by all means. But if an ebuild is removed that a
user want to keep, the solution is so simple it's amazing. Copy the
ebuild to /usr/local/
18 matches
Mail list logo
