On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:06:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
I agree that the tree should be in sync, but how come I was able to
unmerge the package? It must keep the information somewhere -- and it
didn't tell me anything about having packages with no ebuilds -- that
would have been OK.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
gives the rather strange message:
Calculating dependencies... done!
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy dev-tex/mplib:0.
(dependency required by
Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
gives the rather strange message:
Calculating dependencies... done!
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
gives
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
I have a fair number of
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Mark Knecht
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:56 on Monday 13 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
One thing that is NOT a solution is to not delete the ebuild. That
results in your tree being out of sync with upstream. That is not
allowed.
I agree that the tree should be in
Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently,
On Sunday 12 December 2010 21:41:08 Alan McKinnon wrote:
One thing that is NOT a solution is to not delete the ebuild.
Eh? Not deleting the ebuild is not a solution? Is that what you meant to
say?
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
11 matches
Mail list logo