-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Alan McKinnon wrote: | On Sunday 02 March 2008, Chris Walters wrote: |> Alan McKinnon wrote: | I don't -O3 can ever be considered "standard". Also you say you don't | think that's it, then admit -O3 changes the code substantially. I'm | having horrible visions that you are taking a shotgun approach to | fault-finding
Say again? How am I "taking a shotgun approach to fault-finding"? |> The problem has to do the the Service Dependencies not being able to |> be scanned, and I am advised to run /sbin/depscan.sh |> |> When I run that, I just get the same error - which also involves a |> missing /bin/mktemp file. It seems that that package blocks that |> latest version of coreutils... | | What you wrote doesn't make sense. depscan.sh is installed by baselayout | and mktemp is installed by coreutils. You have depscan.sh Which package | is blocking which? You don't have to guess which one, portage will tell | you when an emerge fails. Well, apparently either the latest ~amd64 keyword masked version of coreutils does not install /bin/mktemp, or makes changes so that /sbin/depscan.sh cannot find it, because "/bin/mktemp missing" is a part of the error message, I receive. When I mask the latest version of coreutils, and merge the older one and the mktemp ebuild, the problem disappears (yes, I was able to get emerge to work - finally). | You really should supply more information so that we can help you. You | have now posted 4 times on this thread, and have not supplied any | relevant info at all apart from your arch is ~amd64 and you have a | problem. So let's do this the right way which involves you supplying | the following: | | - when your system "broke twice", what exactly does this mean? What no | longer works, and how does the system's behaviour differ from what you | expect? | - relevant logs | - command(s) run before the problem manifests | - console output that demonstrates a problem I asked for specific and general information in my original message to this list. That was what packages had others, using the "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64", had trouble with. If you have no answer to that question, then you should just say so, or not have bothered to reply. I am not liking the attitude on this list one bit. I didn't ask you, or anyone else to solve a specific problem for me, just a simple general question. If I wanted specific help, I would have provided all that you are claiming I should provide. Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHyv3mUx1jS/ORyCsRChqaAJsHpoz1bA6ry3id6SXVjdTY5YZasACaAsGE TVslqDzdm1KxKhJNI3t+xi4= =s/VG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
