Mailing List Archive: >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked

>=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked

Aug 27, 2005, 2:39 AM

Post #1 of 3 (1610 views)

app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 explicitly requires python compiled with
readline. Apple doesn't do this for us, hence portage wants to pull
python for users that use esearch. Unfortunately for us esearch has
been marked unstable when it was created, so I decided to mask it in the
macos profile.

A user in IRC encountered this problem when updating world using
~ppc-macos. I expect all upcoming versions of esearch to require
readline in esearch, hence I checked this patch in:

Index: package.mask
===================================================================
RCS file:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 package.mask
--- package.mask 4 May 2005 00:05:33 -0000 1.1
+++ package.mask 27 Aug 2005 09:34:33 -0000
@@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
# this version of nano can't save files on Mac OS X - see bug 89040
=app-editors/nano-1.3.4
+
+# the newest esearch requires python with readline, which is not what
+# OSX supplies by default
+>=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked [ In reply to ]

grobian at gentoo

Aug 27, 2005, 5:24 AM

Post #2 of 3 (1538 views)

Permalink

Ok, so I found that there is
profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask
and
profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.3/package.mask
profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.4/package.mask

all three included nano before my commit.

profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask contained a version numbered
nano, the 10.3 and 10.4 profiles a generic nano mask (ie. it always
collides).

What's the difference here exactly? And why isn't the macos one used
for packages that are evil on OSX *any version*, and the 10.4 and 10.3
ones for more selective stuff?

I might miss something here, but if I don't I'd like to move all common
stuff in 10.4 and 10.3 down to macos, as it greatly improves readability
and greatly improves the use of the great inheritance structure provided
by the profiles...

Grobian wrote:
> app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 explicitly requires python compiled with
> readline. Apple doesn't do this for us, hence portage wants to pull
> python for users that use esearch. Unfortunately for us esearch has
> been marked unstable when it was created, so I decided to mask it in the
> macos profile.
>
> A user in IRC encountered this problem when updating world using
> ~ppc-macos. I expect all upcoming versions of esearch to require
> readline in esearch, hence I checked this patch in:
>
>
> Index: package.mask
> ===================================================================
> RCS file:
> /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask,v
> retrieving revision 1.1
> diff -u -r1.1 package.mask
> --- package.mask 4 May 2005 00:05:33 -0000 1.1
> +++ package.mask 27 Aug 2005 09:34:33 -0000
> @@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
> # this version of nano can't save files on Mac OS X - see bug 89040
> =app-editors/nano-1.3.4
> +
> +# the newest esearch requires python with readline, which is not what
> +# OSX supplies by default
> +>=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1
>
>

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: profiles jungle (was: >=app-portage/esearch-0.7.1 masked) [ In reply to ]

grobian at gentoo

Aug 28, 2005, 8:25 AM

Post #3 of 3 (1542 views)

Permalink

Ok, with shame I think I can say I learned something. Since progressive
inherits from macos I consider it to be wrong to have collision-protect
USE flags in the macos/use.mask file. Instead they should go into the
macos/10.[34]/use.mask files. I corrected this issue already in CVS.
If someone still has some nice comment on this, please say so.

Grobian wrote:
> Ok, so I found that there is
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask
> and
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.3/package.mask
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/10.4/package.mask
>
> all three included nano before my commit.
>
> profiles/default-darwin/macos/package.mask contained a version numbered
> nano, the 10.3 and 10.4 profiles a generic nano mask (ie. it always
> collides).
>
> What's the difference here exactly? And why isn't the macos one used
> for packages that are evil on OSX *any version*, and the 10.4 and 10.3
> ones for more selective stuff?
>
> I might miss something here, but if I don't I'd like to move all common
> stuff in 10.4 and 10.3 down to macos, as it greatly improves readability
> and greatly improves the use of the great inheritance structure provided
> by the profiles...

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list