http://blogs.gentoo.org/nichoj?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:24:12 +0000 Kim [Visitor] c17028@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ Though that isn't the norm in /usr/portage/profile/package.mask, is it?<br /> Usually masks there are >=, aren't they? Usually masks there are >=, aren't they?]]> http://blogs.gentoo.org/nichoj/2006/08/03/stale_etc_portage_package_unmask#c17028 Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:51:51 +0000 Joshua Nichols [Member] c16895@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ Excellent point. That would help prevent some problems as well, if used both in /usr/portage/profile/package.mask, and in a user's /etc/portage/package.mask http://blogs.gentoo.org/nichoj/2006/08/03/stale_etc_portage_package_unmask#c16895 Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:19:12 +0000 Christian Faulhammer [Visitor] c16893@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ Then unmasking should be used on a specific version with the "=" operator...this prevents such things to happen. http://blogs.gentoo.org/nichoj/2006/08/03/stale_etc_portage_package_unmask#c16893