On Saturday 18 April 2009 13:08:24 Ned Ludd wrote: > On Sat, 2009-04-18 at 12:55 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday 16 April 2009 19:05:46 Ned Ludd wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 10:50 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 13:27 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 17 March 2009 12:59:58 Ned Ludd wrote: > > > > > > Maybe another with -rX parsing. > > > > > > > > > > if you're thinking of the open bug, that's an eprefix specific > > > > > extension. they turned the X in -rX into a floating point #. which > > > > > isnt supported currently. > > > > > > > > I don't think that was it. But I can't recall well enough off the top > > > > of my head the problem that somebody pointed out to me one day on irc > > > > while I was probably too busy. > > > > > > The error was pointed out to me again today on irc by jmbsvicetto and > > > hoffie, which reminded me of what I had forgot before in this thread. > > > > > > The problem was/is that qpkg is not handling -rX extensions properly. > > > > you'll have to be more specific. like i said, -rX extensions are a > > prefix extension and not part of the standard tree and/or spec. i'm not > > going to implement every random thing that someone feels like adding. > > Heh. I don't think you understand the problem yet. Not a feature > request.. It's a real bug/regression. See the bug# that jmbsvicetto > filed this morn about it. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/266646
yes, that is the "more information" that i required. that certainly looks bad. i'm guessing 0.1.29 works but 0.2 fails ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
