KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe he does have multiple versions installed of those packages. What
For gcc: Yes. It's about time to dump gcc-3.4.6.
is the output of for example:
emerge -avP gcc
?
$ emerge -avP gcc
superuser access is required... adding --pretend to options.
Calculating
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Maybe he does have multiple versions installed of those packages.
What
For gcc: Yes. It's about time to dump gcc-3.4.6.
Yes, I see now. --depclean is removing old SLOTS and the original output
is either very unverbose, or has been trimmed
Michael Schmarck wrote:
KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe he does have multiple versions installed of those packages. What
For gcc: Yes. It's about time to dump gcc-3.4.6.
is the output of for example:
emerge -avP gcc
?
$ emerge -avP gcc
superuser access is required...
Dale wrote:
It's been a while but make sure you have switched to the new gcc and
it is working fine before removing the old one. Nothing worse than
removing gcc then finding out the new one isn't . . . functional.
Sort of fun to fix.
Dale
:-) :-)
Tell me about it!
Hint: Don't then
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:08:42 -0500, Dale wrote:
It's been a while but make sure you have switched to the new gcc and it
is working fine before removing the old one. Nothing worse than
removing gcc then finding out the new one isn't . . . functional. Sort
of fun to fix.
NEVER unmerge a
Anthony Metcalf wrote:
Dale wrote:
It's been a while but make sure you have switched to the new gcc and
it is working fine before removing the old one. Nothing worse than
removing gcc then finding out the new one isn't . . . functional.
Sort of fun to fix.
Dale
:-) :-)
Tell me about
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:08:42 -0500, Dale wrote:
It's been a while but make sure you have switched to the new gcc
and it is working fine before removing the old one. Nothing worse
than removing gcc then finding out the new one isn't . . .
Michael Schmarck wrote:
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:20:21 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Which majorly sucks, as there are good reasons why the packages
should NOT be the way they are right now.
Such as?
Finer control, without
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:20:21 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Which majorly sucks, as there are good reasons why the packages
should NOT be the way they are right now.
Such as?
Finer control, without cluttering the world file.
Hint: uncluttering the
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:42:51 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
NEVER unmerge a system package without building a binary package
first.
Tut, tut. Neil, where's the fun in that?
The fun is in learning the rule in the first place. It's like making
backups, no one does it because someone else said
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:36:45 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Which majorly sucks, as there are good reasons why the packages
should NOT be the way they are right now.
Such as?
Finer control, without cluttering the world file.
What could be finer than picking which packages you
On Tuesday 08 April 2008, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:20:21 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
Which majorly sucks, as there are good reasons why the packages
should NOT be the way they are right now.
Such as?
Finer control,
12 matches
Mail list logo
