Mailing List Archive

package masking
Hi to everyone,
my question is:

Is there "easy" way to emerge gnome meta-package while masking some
useless (for me) features such as vino, vinagre,...
For now I'm using gnome-light but this is very minimal and so there are
some packages that I have to hand select to my world which is not so
convenient and I'm afraid of loosing touch with some new cool features
in future updates.

Thanks for help in advance
S



--
Samuraiii
e-mail: samuraiii@volny.cz <mailto:samuraiii@volny.cz>
GnuPG key ID: 0x80C752EA
<http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0x80C752EA&op=vindex&fingerprint=on&exact=on>
(obtainable on http://pgp.mit.edu)
Full copy of public timestamp block <http://publictimestamp.org>
signatures id-14659 (from 2012-04-27 18:00:06) is included in header of
html.
Re: package masking [ In reply to ]
Am 28.04.2012 11:21, schrieb Samuraiii:
> Hi to everyone,
> my question is:
>
> Is there "easy" way to emerge gnome meta-package while masking some
> useless (for me) features such as vino, vinagre,...
> For now I'm using gnome-light but this is very minimal and so there are
> some packages that I have to hand select to my world which is not so
> convenient and I'm afraid of loosing touch with some new cool features
> in future updates.
>
> Thanks for help in advance
> S
>
>
>

Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
dependencies you don't like.

Regards,
Florian Philipp
Re: package masking [ In reply to ]
> Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
> package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
> dependencies you don't like.

Sounds like a good idea. I am not to happy with some meta packages
either. I'll give it a try.
Re: package masking [ In reply to ]
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:49:54 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:

> > Certainly not. The most reasonable way is to maintain your own meta
> > package in an overlay. Just copy gnome-*.ebuild there and remove all
> > dependencies you don't like.
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I am not to happy with some meta packages
> either. I'll give it a try.

If you use portage-2.2, sets provide an easier way to do this. A set is
just a list of package atoms, one per line, in a file
in /etc/portage/sets, say /etc/portage/sets/gnome. Then you just emerge
@gnome.

Unlike a versioned ebuild, there is no need to modify the set when new
versions are released, the set will always use the latest matching
version.


--
Neil Bothwick

Diarrhoea is hereditary, it runs in your genes.
Re: package masking [ In reply to ]
> If you use portage-2.2, sets provide an easier way to do this. A set is
> just a list of package atoms, one per line, in a file
> in /etc/portage/sets, say /etc/portage/sets/gnome. Then you just emerge
> @gnome.

Portage Sets look nice, but I'm still on portage 2.1 - haven't tried 2.2
yet, I just wanted a stable portage on my production boxes.
But that's no reason not to try it on my workstation here :) emerging
portage 2.2.......