hmmm ... sounds a bit cranky! - had a tooth out today :(
BilLK
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 20:25 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
notice the downgrade on
2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
notice the downgrade on one system in time. If it was for security or
other reasons I could understand it, and maybe not agree with it ... but
just
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:25:57 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
On this system, I just left portage at what seemed to be a working
version to avoid the problems caused by the downgrade.
I think the key word here is seemed :(
--
Neil Bothwick
There's no place like ~
signature.asc
On Sunday 07 June 2009 03:28:21 William Kenworthy wrote:
As for the OP, I can only guess what might be causing this. Let's start
with obvious stuff:
1. Is portage the latest version for your arch?
2. What does revdep-rebuild return?
3. What is your arch, and is it a mixture of stable
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to support
sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of portage at Zac's
whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately and at once went away
when I did this...
Maybe that's why I
On Sunday 07 June 2009 17:21:20 walt wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to
support sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of
portage at Zac's whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately
and at
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:28:21 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
* sys-apps/portage
Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15
If you're going to run release candidate versions, at least run the
latest release candidate. rc15 hasn't been in portage for a
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com writes:
The only reason it's masked is to force as many users as possible to use an
earlier version so that it can receive more testing and get better bug
reports, and that was done by Zac himself. There is not a single technical
or
code quality
William Kenworthy wrote:
After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested emerge
@preserved-rebuild, plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
after building, there is no change ...
!!! existing preserved
On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
William Kenworthy wrote:
After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested emerge
@preserved-rebuild, plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
after
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
You will notice that after running emerge @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild
almost invariably returns null results...
I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
#emerge @preserved-rebuild
!!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package
On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
You will notice that after running emerge @preserved-rebuild,
revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
#emerge @preserved-rebuild
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
You will notice that after running emerge @preserved-rebuild,
revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 19:23 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
William Kenworthy wrote:
After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested emerge
@preserved-rebuild, plus
14 matches
Mail list logo
