On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Michael K. Johnson <johns...@rpath.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 05:38:18PM +0100, Rune Morling wrote: >> I ran an updateall on my x86_64 system from the 2010-10-18 group-world >> to the 2010-10-26 group-world, which updated conary, restarted and >> promptly 'broke' conary (it appears a 32bit version was installed). > > The pain of alpha testing... You'll want to look back a bit at my > previous mail with a new subject line telling you that there is an > important change to make: > > Subject: [Foresight-devel] system-model users: important change! > Message-ID: <20101020191021.ga29...@logo.rdu.rpath.com> > < IMMEDIATELY AFTER you update to this shapshot (or later, if I update > < further) you will need to edit your /etc/conary/system-model file and > < invert the order of your "search" lines. > ... > > http://lists.rpath.org/pipermail/foresight-devel/2010-October/002037.html > > The way the search lines are interpreted was changed in response to > eMBee's very useful criticism, which was what bit you. >
I read that mail (but not the entire thread) and apparently I didn't understand its implications. That said, this is how I would guess a minimal system-model for an x86_64 sytem with a sprinkle of x86 stuff (flash + dependencies mostly) should look like. Could someone please comment on this? ### search 'group-world=foresight.rpath....@fl:2-devel/2.4.9.1+2010.10.26-0.2-2[~!gcc.core is: x86_64 x86]' install group-gnome-dist-devel ### TIA, /ermo _______________________________________________ Foresight-devel mailing list Foresight-devel@lists.rpath.org http://lists.rpath.org/mailman/listinfo/foresight-devel
