Will do - I know I saw it once!!!
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 08 April 2005 09:21 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
even rebooted. How
On Friday 08 April 2005 09:21 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
> and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
> even rebooted. However, I did NOT have a symlink to 2.4 so who knows.
well if you can r
Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
even rebooted. However, I did NOT have a symlink to 2.4 so who knows.
Here's the output (before recreating the symlink)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] brett $ eme
>>Thanks for the suggestions, I've tried 2004.0 .1 .2 .3 with similar
>>results as below.
>
>
> you didnt use the one i suggested the 2nd time around ...
Opps, I didn't notice I was using the wrong directory!
Thanks for the help.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 08 April 2005 08:35 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> In short - what do we have to do to upgrade to a current profile on 2.6
> machines and get 2.6 gentoo-source updates, not 2.4.
if you use 'default-linux/x86/2005.0' as your profile, it should be giving you
2.6 kernels ... in order to get
Question here - I made the link to the 2005.0 profile on (NOT 2005.0/2.4)
a system that is 2.6.11 and has been on 2.6 for months. Tonight emerge
-uD system -p wants to "upgrade" me to a 2.4 kernel!!! Well, portage this
is a 2.6.x system - not 2.4 - duh! From what I found in the mail list
arc
On Friday 08 April 2005 08:24 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> >>!!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
> >>!!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
> >
> > so use 'default-x8
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
>
>>!!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
>>!!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
>
>
> so use 'default-x86-2004.2', emerge portage, and then switch to the cascading
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> !!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
> !!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
so use 'default-x86-2004.2', emerge portage, and then switch to the cascading
version
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gent
Francesco Riosa wrote:
> David Sparks wrote:
>
>> Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
>> a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
>>
>>
> because 2004.0 is the same as 1.4 (don't ask where I've readed it)
I tried linking to 2004.0 and got the same
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:35 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted?
this was announced quite a while ago
> I tried symlinking make.profile to a newer profile and got this:
unlink that profile, update your portage to the latest version, and then set
the profile to defaul
David Sparks wrote:
Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
because 2004.0 is the same as 1.4 (don't ask where I've readed it)
# ls -ld make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root39 Nov 14 2003 make.profile ->
../u
Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
# ls -ld make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root39 Nov 14 2003 make.profile ->
../usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4
# ls -ld ../usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4
13 matches
Mail list logo
