Alexey Luchko wrote:
colinux ~ # emerge portage --pretend --tree
These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[nomerge ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.11 [2.1.2.2]
[ebuild U ] app-shells/bash-3.2_p39 [3.1_p17] USE=-examples%
-plugins%
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 12:03:40 Alexey Luchko wrote:
Alexey Luchko wrote:
colinux ~ # emerge portage --pretend --tree
These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[nomerge ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.11 [2.1.2.2]
[ebuild U
On 13 May 2009, at 11:17, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
Why are you doing this? Is it to learn how to cope with such things?
If not, you are really wasting time that you will never get back. ...
Trust me, if this is not a learning exercise, just unmount your data
volumes
and reinstall the
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 16:16:10 Stroller wrote:
In my case, reinstallation would be a huge pain. I would be massively
worrying about which services on the machine I need to configure
again, and whether everything I needed had been backed up properly. I
have forgotten the original
On 13 May 2009, at 11:03, Alexey Luchko wrote:
Alexey Luchko wrote:
colinux ~ # emerge portage --pretend --tree
These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[nomerge ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.11 [2.1.2.2]
[ebuild U ]
On 13 May 2009, at 15:27, Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
It's just that I remember all too well what it took to get through
those many
various blockers. More often than not I was once of the first to run
into them
- I sync and update daily - but I'd hate to do it all again all in
one go,
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 16:49:52 Stroller wrote:
I reread Alexey's post after replying to yours, and the reason he's
having problems is because he's being careless. If you break the
system, it's obviously a gamble whether you'll get your ass out of the
problem you created for yourself.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday 13 May 2009 16:49:52 Stroller wrote:
I reread Alexey's post after replying to yours, and the reason he's
having problems is because he's being careless. If you break the
system, it's obviously a gamble
Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes:
buildsyspkg in FEATURES (make.conf) can be a life saver too :)
But it does not (IMHO) save binaries for enough packages. For example,
it saves a binary for portage but not for python. I think it would be
good if it saved a binary package for
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Graham Murray gra...@gmurray.org.uk wrote:
Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com writes:
buildsyspkg in FEATURES (make.conf) can be a life saver too :)
But it does not (IMHO) save binaries for enough packages. For example,
it saves a binary for portage
On Wed, 13 May 2009 16:30:09 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:
buildsyspkg in FEATURES (make.conf) can be a life saver too :)
But it does not (IMHO) save binaries for enough packages.
Then use buildpkg.
--
Neil Bothwick
It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
signature.asc
On Sunday 10 May 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Once you sort that out, there's a whole host of other stuff to fix as
well - expat, latest xorg and many more - all stuff that everyone
else fixed a while ago and since forgot.
Yes, beware of mktemp/coreutils too.
I don't remember of other dangers,
12 matches
Mail list logo
