| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1254
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:29 am Post subject: specifying package atoms |
 |
|
In /etc/portage/package.mask, I am trying to specify that I will accept any version (revision) of foo-1.2.3, but want to mask anything greater than that.
I tried:
| Code: |
>~some-category/foo-1.2.3
|
but all that did was get me a "--- Invalid atom in /etc/portage/package.mask:" error message.
Is there a proper way of specifying this?
Thank you in advance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wcg
Guru
Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 550
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about
| Code: |
>=some-category/foo-1.2.4
|
Any 1.2.3-r? will be less than 1.2.4, but anything 1.2.4 or higher
will be masked. (It does not matter if foo-1.2.4 actually exists
or not.)
_________________
TIA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wcg wrote: | What about
| Code: |
>=some-category/foo-1.2.4
|
Any 1.2.3-r? will be less than 1.2.4, but anything 1.2.4 or higher
will be masked. (It does not matter if foo-1.2.4 actually exists
or not.) |
The problem with that (which I don't believe would occur in this case, but it could happen) is that it wouldn't work if a 1.2.3.1 comes out. I believe that 1.2.3.1 is not a member of the ~1.2.3 set, which means that I want to mask it, but the expression you suggested would not do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chiitoo
l33t
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 616
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: specifying package atoms |
|
|
Teegrins, curmudgeon!
As far as I know,
| Code: |
>~some-category/foo-1.2.3
|
indeed is an invalid atom due to the ~ symbol.
Right now I can't think of a more proper way, but how about:
| Code: |
>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99
|
Apologies if I misunderstood your wants. ^^;
Just some thoughts~
_________________
Kind Regards,
The Noob Unlimited
~sore wa sore kore wa kore~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 6434
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: specifying package atoms |
|
|
| Chiitoo wrote: | | Code: |
>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99
|
|
is not optimal because 1.2.3.1 > 1.2.3-r99. There is no perfect solution with today's syntax. About the best you can do is choose the first version that is greater than the one you want to keep (whether it exists or not) and do a >= mask on that. For instance, in this hypothetical example, I would choose- John
_________________
This space intentionally left blank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
curmudgeon
Veteran
Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: specifying package atoms |
|
|
| Chiitoo wrote: |
Right now I can't think of a more proper way, but how about:
| Code: |
>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99
|
|
That does seem like the best way (well, maybe -r9999) of accomplishing what I want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chiitoo
l33t
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 616
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:38 am Post subject: Re: specifying package atoms |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | | Chiitoo wrote: | | Code: |
>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99
|
|
is not optimal because 1.2.3.1 > 1.2.3-r99. There is no perfect solution with today's syntax. About the best you can do is choose the first version that is greater than the one you want to keep (whether it exists or not) and do a >= mask on that. For instance, in this hypothetical example, I would choose- John |
Thanks; I wasn't sure if 1.2.3.1 was wanted or not, and also thanks for the confirmation that there isn't a perfect solution at the time as I was going to dig into it. :)
| curmudgeon wrote: | | Chiitoo wrote: |
Right now I can't think of a more proper way, but how about:
| Code: |
>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99
|
|
That does seem like the best way (well, maybe -r9999) of accomplishing what I want. |
So I guess I read it right, 1.2.3.1 was not wanted. Yeah, the r99 was just an example without knowing the package, and its versioning scheme at all.
If I'm right, that should keep you within the boundaries of the one version, and its revisions, until they go higher.
_________________
Kind Regards,
The Noob Unlimited
~sore wa sore kore wa kore~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
