Am 28.03.2011 17:41, schrieb Roman Zilka:
KH (Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:22:55 +0200):
I do have python-2.7 and python-3.1 emerged. I just took al look in
/usr/lib64/ and I can find trace of python2.4 python2.5 python2.6
python2.7 python3.1 . Are those folders (2.4; 2.5; 2.6) needed anymore?
If
Am 25.03.2011 05:48, schrieb Paul Hartman:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:22 AM, KH gentoo-u...@konstantinhansen.de wrote:
Am 25.03.2011 05:48, schrieb Paul Hartman:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something,
KH (Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:22:55 +0200):
I do have python-2.7 and python-3.1 emerged. I just took al look in
/usr/lib64/ and I can find trace of python2.4 python2.5 python2.6
python2.7 python3.1 . Are those folders (2.4; 2.5; 2.6) needed anymore?
If no, why are the still there?
Is there anything
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of them.
I guess I'm not clear on the use of
Le 27/03/2011 17:26, Mark Knecht a écrit :
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:26:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
Manual means manually added to the list by python-updater, rather than
using any sort of detection.
OK, I won't bother with the many definitions of the word manual or how
that effects the conversation from my end 'cause that don't
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:26:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
Manual means manually added to the list by python-updater, rather than
using any sort of detection.
OK, I won't bother with the many definitions of the word
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 12:50:57 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
I've also been hit by the first, as I think I mentioned. As for the
other two, re-emerging a binary package won't help at all, because
it's a binary package, so you unpack it rather than rebuild it.
That's more a problem with using
Understood and agreed. For OO I couldn't quite get up the interest to
start building from scratch though. Something like 450MB of things to
download and then what, do it again in a week or two? Not worth it for
my needs.
Did you delete the source out of your /usr/portage/distfiles
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
laptop ! (trying other version break networking with wicd).
Wicd works fine with 2.7. There
On Saturday 26 March 2011 19:10:12 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
laptop ! (trying other version break
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 26 March 2011 19:10:12 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
I think wicd rely on python 2.6
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
broken with respect to:
openoffice-bin
boost
emul-linux-x86-baselibs
No
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Bill Longman bill.long...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote:
SNIP
I had nothing linked to libmpfr.so.1 so that wasn't the root cause/
In my case it seems to be driven by bugs like this:
On Saturday 26 March 2011 20:53:50 Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Bill Longman bill.long...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com
wrote:
SNIP
I had nothing linked to libmpfr.so.1 so that wasn't the root cause/
In my
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:10:12 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
broken with respect to:
openoffice-bin
boost
emul-linux-x86-baselibs
Aren't those manually
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 12:10:12 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
I've been through this 2.7 update process on 4 machines now. It seems
on all of my machines the python-updater thing is pretty much always
broken with respect to:
I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual' here. They are
automatically added. If they are correctly rebuilt then they shouldn't
need to be added a second time, correct? However they are. (Over and
over...)
Basically, it is my understanding that if everything is correctly
updated then on
On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:33:14 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
Aren't those manually added to the list by python-updater? So you
need to use -dmanual to prevent further rebuilding of them.
I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual' here.
It's explained in the manual page (sorry :)
Manual means
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at this point and
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
2.7?
I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
--
Neil Bothwick
Documentation: (n.) a novel sold with software, designed to entertain the
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
2.7?
I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
--
Neil Bothwick
Do you recollect
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
I installed 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6 on October 5th.
--
Neil Bothwick
Do you recollect whether you ran python-updater immediately after the
2.7 emerge, and do you remember whether you set 2.7 as your active
version
Mark Knecht (Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700):
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
2.7?
I install 2.7 on August 10th and removed 2.6
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
Roman Zilka wrote:
Mark Knecht (Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:56:20 -0700):
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Neil Bothwickn...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:37:15 -0500, Dale wrote:
Out of curiosity, how long you, or someone else, been using python
2.7?
I
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.comwrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break
On Friday 25 March 2011 01:28:35 Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
2 version and then
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:09:50 +0100, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
I think wicd rely on python 2.6 currently. This is my setup on my
laptop ! (trying other version break networking with wicd).
Wicd works fine with 2.7. There was a problem when 2,7 was first
released, but that was fixed in a Wicd
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
2 version and then run
Mark Knecht wrote:
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new version python be selected first as the active python
2
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 07:28:35PM -0500, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
One of my machines just saw a python-2.7 update and the ebuild was
good enough to remind me to run python-updater, but it didn't suggest
that I run eselect python and set the active version to 2.7.
Should this new
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 12:28 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
And if we should set python to 2.7, should we remove python-2.6? I don't
think we want to break something, portage in particular. ;-)
I have no trace of python-2.6 on my system at this point and I'm
getting along just fine
35 matches
Mail list logo
