SEO

I am trying to install the utelnetd package, which has been masked.

emerge utelnetd
!!!All ebuilds that could satisfy 'utelnetd' have been masked.
!!!One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- net-misc/utelnetd-0.1.9 (masked by: ~86 keyword)

I now create the file /etc/portage/package.keywords as follows:

net-misc/utelnetd ~86

I now try again the installation:

emerge utelnetd
!!!All ebuilds that could satisfy 'utelnetd' have been masked.
!!!One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- net-misc/utelnetd-0.1.9 (masked by: ~86 keyword)

Ok, its not working. I now refer to the Gentoo handbook
3.c. Using Masked Packages

When a package has been masked by the Gentoo developers and you still
want to use it despite the reason mentioned in the package.mask file
(situated in /usr/portage/profiles by default), add the exact same line
in the /etc/portage/package.unmask file (or in a file in that directory
if it is a directory).

I examine /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask as follows:
grep utelnetd /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask

This returns no results. Why is the package showing as masked, and how
do I unmask it?

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help.

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

Mark Hobley wrote:

> I now create the file /etc/portage/package.keywords as follows:
>
> net-misc/utelnetd ~86

It should be

net-misc/utelnetd ~x86

Regards

Mark Hobley <markhobley@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote:

> net-misc/utelnetd ~86

By removing the ~86 parameter from the file, I have now managed to
install the package.

Regards,

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

Mark Hobley wrote:

> Mark Hobley <markhobley@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>> net-misc/utelnetd ~86
>
> By removing the ~86 parameter from the file, I have now managed to
> install the package.

This relies on the fact that missing keyword implies unstable (ie, ~arch), a
feature documented but which might change in the future without notice.
It's better to explicitly specify the keyword (~x86 in your case).

pk wrote:

> Mark Hobley wrote:
>
>> I now create the file /etc/portage/package.keywords as follows:
>>
>> net-misc/utelnetd ~86
>
> It should be
>
> net-misc/utelnetd ~x86

Xen, the Xen kernel sources and the Xen tools are masked as well in Portage,
but I could install them nevertheless by adding them to
*/etc/portage/package.keywords* without the - in my case - "~amd64" and
then simply emerging them. This is with the latest version of Portage.

--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

Aragorn wrote:

> Xen, the Xen kernel sources and the Xen tools are masked as well in
> Portage, but I could install them nevertheless by adding them to
> */etc/portage/package.keywords* without the - in my case - "~amd64" and
> then simply emerging them. This is with the latest version of Portage.

Yes, this exploits the "missing keyword equals unstable" feature, as per man
portage:

package.keywords
Per-package KEYWORDS. Useful for mixing unstable
packages in with a normally stable system or vice
versa. This will allow ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to be augmented
for a single package.

Format:
- comment lines begin with # (no inline comments)
- one DEPEND atom per line followed by additional
KEYWORDS
- lines without any KEYWORDS imply unstable host arch

However, this was not true in the past and might change in the future as
well. Thus it's always better to explicitly specify the architecture
(~amd64 in your case).

pk wrote:

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Xen, the Xen kernel sources and the Xen tools are masked as well in
>> Portage, but I could install them nevertheless by adding them to
>> */etc/portage/package.keywords* without the - in my case - "~amd64" and
>> then simply emerging them. This is with the latest version of Portage.
>
> Yes, this exploits the "missing keyword equals unstable" feature, as per
> man portage:
>
> package.keywords
> Per-package KEYWORDS. Useful for mixing unstable
> packages in with a normally stable system or vice
> versa. This will allow ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to be
> augmented for a single package.
>
> Format:
> - comment lines begin with # (no inline comments)
> - one DEPEND atom per line followed by additional
> KEYWORDS
> - lines without any KEYWORDS imply unstable host arch
>
> However, this was not true in the past and might change in the future as
> well. Thus it's always better to explicitly specify the architecture
> (~amd64 in your case).

Okay, thanks for the heads up. I'll edit my package.keywords file and add
the keyword to it. ;-)

--
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)