On Sat, 16 May 2015 08:57:15 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Does that include the several lines of comments, often repeated, that
> > portage includes in the auto-unmask output? I just checked two systems
> > for abi_x86_32 and got around 130 lines in one and 220 in the other.
>
> Yes, it does.
2015-05-16 17:12 GMT+03:00 Rich Freeman :
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:53 AM, gevisz wrote:
>>
>> I am inattentive today. :(
>>
>> Some blockers remained but I hope it will not broke the system.
>>...
>> [blocks b ] > (">...
>> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y
>>
>
> This is
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:53 AM, gevisz wrote:
>
> I am inattentive today. :(
>
> Some blockers remained but I hope it will not broke the system.
>...
> [blocks b ] ("...
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] y
>
This is pretty normal for a qt upgrade. You haven't updated this
2015-05-16 15:50 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
> On 16/05/2015 09:51, gevisz wrote:
>> 2015-05-16 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>>> On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 May
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2015 07:16:58 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Well, it can be a lot more than two screens of text. I have 1300
>> lines of package.use, almost all of it for abi_x86_32. I suspect that
>> this the result of stuff like steam,
2015-05-16 11:26 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> 2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
>> 2015-05-16 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>>> On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 0
On 16/05/2015 09:51, gevisz wrote:
> 2015-05-16 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>> On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
>>> 2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
> wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2015 07:16:58 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Unless your screen is IMAX-sized, two screens of text is a lot more
> > lightfooted than add extra libraries to nearly 200 packages - and most
> > of that text is comments anyway.
> >
>
> Well, it can be a lot more than two screens of
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 2015 13:10:21 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this. On older PCs I would
>> > rather did not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't
>> > need to. The granular approach suits me
On Sat, 16 May 2015 11:52:48 +0100, Mick wrote:
> PS. I'm waiting for Neil's uncanny signature which if it works
> correctly it should come with something like: "Nostalgia, it's not
> what it used to be" LOL!
You can't force these things, it's not uncanny if it's deliberate.
--
Neil Bothwick
On Saturday 16 May 2015 11:40:01 gevisz wrote:
> 2015-05-16 13:20 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> > As Mick says, you get to choose, but the per-package approach is
> > definitely lighter on the system. Enabling it globally may be less work
> > though. I say "may" because when I tried that it introduc
2015-05-16 13:33 GMT+03:00 Mick :
> On Saturday 16 May 2015 11:10:21 gevisz wrote:
>> 2015-05-16 11:55 GMT+03:00 Mick :
>
>> > I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this. On older PCs I would rather
>> > did not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't need to.
>> > The granular approa
2015-05-16 13:20 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Sat, 16 May 2015 13:10:21 +0300, gevisz wrote:
>
>> > I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this. On older PCs I would
>> > rather did not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't
>> > need to. The granular approach suits me better and a
On Saturday 16 May 2015 11:10:21 gevisz wrote:
> 2015-05-16 11:55 GMT+03:00 Mick :
> > I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this. On older PCs I would rather
> > did not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't need to.
> > The granular approach suits me better and also aligns bette
On Sat, 16 May 2015 13:10:21 +0300, gevisz wrote:
> > I'm afraid I cannot agree with you on this. On older PCs I would
> > rather did not have to install abi_x86_32 for packages that I don't
> > need to. The granular approach suits me better and also aligns
> > better with the light-footed Gento
2015-05-16 13:10 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> 2015-05-16 11:55 GMT+03:00 Mick :
>> On Saturday 16 May 2015 09:26:14 gevisz wrote:
>>> 2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
>>
>>> >So, if I get no better suggestions, I will enable abi_x86_32
>>> >globally and try to update the world once more.
2015-05-16 11:55 GMT+03:00 Mick :
> On Saturday 16 May 2015 09:26:14 gevisz wrote:
>> 2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
>
>> >So, if I get no better suggestions, I will enable abi_x86_32
>> >globally and try to update the world once more.
>>
>> Lukily, this approach worked out. Cu
On Saturday 16 May 2015 09:26:14 gevisz wrote:
> 2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> >So, if I get no better suggestions, I will enable abi_x86_32
> >globally and try to update the world once more.
>
> Lukily, this approach worked out. Currently I am updating and recompil
2015-05-16 10:51 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> 2015-05-16 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
>> On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
>>> 2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
> wrote:
2015-05-16 9:44 GMT+03:00 Alan McKinnon :
> On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
>> 2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
>>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
wrote:
> I had a similar problem with som
On 16/05/2015 07:52, gevisz wrote:
> 2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
>> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
>>> wrote:
>>>
I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
it woul
2015-05-15 20:30 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
>> > it wouldn't take the -libav USE flag without addi
On Friday 15 May 2015 18:30:29 Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
> > > it wouldn't take the -libav USE flag
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Gevisz wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury
> wrote:
>
> > I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
> > it wouldn't take the -libav USE flag without adding a keyword for
> > ~amd64 on the virtual.
> > (yes, I
On Fri, 15 May 2015 01:45:35 -0400 Gregory Woodbury wrote:
> I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
> it wouldn't take the -libav USE flag without adding a keyword for
> ~amd64 on the virtual.
> (yes, I am going the opposite way from you, but the cause seem the
> s
I had a similar problem with some packages wanting virtual/ffmpeg and
it wouldn't take the -libav USE flag without adding a keyword for
~amd64 on the virtual.
(yes, I am going the opposite way from you, but the cause seem the
same -- various USE flags are not yet adjusted in the stable
branches.)
After Gentoo devs decided to switch back to ffmpeg default,
I set libav USE flag at my /etc/portage/make.conf
and was happy with that so far. :)
However, after yesterday's
# emerge-webrsync
# emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask world
I've got some blocks that in my
27 matches
Mail list logo
