On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
out there and therefore should not be in
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote:
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really -
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
(Independently of the @system sets.)
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out
there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put
portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the
package.
The solution
Am 03.08.2011 23:44, schrieb Willie Wong:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out
there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put
portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did
not put portage in world, and did not use
On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote:
@system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`
It doesn't try this on my system.
On Monday, August 1 at 12:41 (+0200), Joost Roeleveld said:
On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote:
@system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If
you
do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself.
Just
add it to @world by
On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said:
Hi there,
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on
x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed
recently.
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage
Am 31.07.2011 06:44, schrieb Stroller:
Hi there,
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on
x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed
recently.
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is
available -
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-)
--
Rgds
Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
On Sun 31 July 2011 12:08:01 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading
portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the
On Sunday, July 31 at 12:08 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said:
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the
On 31 July 2011, at 10:02, Florian Philipp wrote:
...
@system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`
Many thanks!
Perfect answer.
Stroller.
On 31 July 2011, at 13:15, Albert Hopkins wrote:
Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the
peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions
of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I
read it :P
They OP could
On Sunday, July 31 at 13:31 (+0100), Stroller said:
Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should
unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that
view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really
not for me.
I was also quite
Hi there,
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86
stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently.
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is
available - you're strongly advised to take it message.
I'm
17 matches
Mail list logo
