Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-24 Thread Fernando Meira
On 9/22/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:03:53 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: I might be wrong, but I have the idea that E-cvs packages are always updated during an emerge world.Only if you run it without -p or -a. I never run emerge world without fiorst checking

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-21 Thread Fernando Meira
On 9/20/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:50:28 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: - I run emerge -pv depclean and I get a list where I find these: These are the packages that I would unmerge: media-libs/libmpeg3 selected: 1.5.2 protected: none omitted: none

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-21 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:36:59 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: If you installed it with portage, you should have it in world. I've installed with portage, but with --oneshop option. This is because (as Holly said) E17 packages need to be installed in proper order. So I use a script to update

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-21 Thread Fernando Meira
On 9/21/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:36:59 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: If you installed it with portage, you should have it in world. I've installed with portage, but with --oneshop option. This is because (as Holly said) E17 packages need to be installed in

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-21 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 23:03:53 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: Add them to world. As long as you don't do an automatic emerge -uD world you shouldn't have a problem. When updates come out, you'll see them in the output of emerge -pvD world (which you won't with your current setup) then you can

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-20 Thread Fernando Meira
On 9/20/05, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:04:02 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote: One point I have never seen mentioned is *why* would you *not* want a package in the world file - especially if you want it to be managed by the system? The world file is for packages you have

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-20 Thread Willie Wong
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 01:50:28PM +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: 2) win32codecs was marked to be clean. why? # equery d win32codecs [ Searching for packages depending on win32codecs... ] media-libs/xine-lib-1.0.1-r3 media-video/avifile-0.7.41.20041001-r1 media-video/mplayer-1.0_pre7-r1 Do

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-20 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:50:28 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: - I run emerge -pv depclean and I get a list where I find these: These are the packages that I would unmerge: media-libs/libmpeg3 selected: 1.5.2 protected: none omitted: none x11-plugins/e_modules selected: protected:

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-20 Thread Holly Bostick
Neil Bothwick schreef: On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:50:28 +0200, Fernando Meira wrote: # equery d libmpeg3 [ Searching for packages depending on libmpeg3... ] app-misc/evidence- What are these versions? Are they CVS installs, or packages installed outside of portage and injected,

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-19 Thread gentuxx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jason Stubbs wrote: On Monday 19 September 2005 13:16, gentuxx wrote: If I update firefox with the --oneshot option, I know that it won't update the world tree, but why? Why is that the recommended procedure? Does that give me any benefit? Also, why

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-19 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 19 September 2005 15:00, gentuxx wrote: does updating a package for a security fix using the --oneshot option update the same package that is housed in the world tree? There is no world tree. There is only a list. --oneshot has no affect on this list. If so, can I assume that

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-19 Thread W.Kenworthy
One point I have never seen mentioned is *why* would you *not* want a package in the world file - especially if you want it to be managed by the system? BillK On Tue, 2005-09-20 at 09:07 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 20 September 2005 01:12, gentuxx wrote: If every security fix comes

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-19 Thread gentuxx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 W.Kenworthy wrote: One point I have never seen mentioned is *why* would you *not* want a package in the world file - especially if you want it to be managed by the system? BillK I guess maybe that's part of what I'm getting at. ;-) On Tue,

[gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-18 Thread gentuxx
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I don't know if this would be considered a newbie question or not. I haven't really seen it asked, and I haven't been able to find any documentation that clearly states this, so I thought I would ask here. Why is the --oneshot option

Re: [gentoo-user] Security Updates and Portage Trees

2005-09-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 19 September 2005 13:16, gentuxx wrote: If I update firefox with the --oneshot option, I know that it won't update the world tree, but why? Why is that the recommended procedure? Does that give me any benefit? Also, why would a package be available as a --oneshot and NOT through a