On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:25:57 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On this system, I just left portage at what seemed to be a working
> version to avoid the problems caused by the downgrade.
I think the key word here is "seemed" :(
--
Neil Bothwick
There's no place like ~
signature.asc
Descript
2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
notice the downgrade on one system in time. If it was for security or
other reasons I could understand it, and maybe not agree with it ... but
just becaus
hmmm ... sounds a bit cranky! - had a tooth out today :(
BilLK
On Mon, 2009-06-08 at 20:25 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> 2.1.6.13 was the latest when ... - thats as kindly as I can think of the
> person and his reasons for putting me through a lot of work as I didnt
> notice the downgrade on
Alan McKinnon writes:
> The only reason it's masked is to force as many users as possible to use an
> earlier version so that it "can receive more testing and get better bug
> reports", and that was done by Zac himself. There is not a single technical
> or
> code quality reason for it to be m
On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:28:21 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> * sys-apps/portage
> Latest version available: 2.1.6.13
> Latest version installed: 2.2_rc15
If you're going to run release candidate versions, at least run the
latest release candidate. rc15 hasn't been in portage for a
On Sunday 07 June 2009 17:21:20 walt wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to
> > support sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of
> > portage at Zac's whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately
> >
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
I'm also not sure anymore about which portage version was first to support
sets. What I did was blow my top at the forced downgrade of portage at Zac's
whim, and unmasked portage. Lots of troubles immediately and at once went away
when I did this...
Maybe that's why I r
On Sunday 07 June 2009 03:28:21 William Kenworthy wrote:
> > As for the OP, I can only guess what might be causing this. Let's start
> > with obvious stuff:
> >
> > 1. Is portage the latest version for your arch?
> > 2. What does revdep-rebuild return?
> > 3. What is your arch, and is it a mixture
On Sat, 2009-06-06 at 19:23 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
> > William Kenworthy wrote:
> > > After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
> > > increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested "emerge
> > > @preserved-r
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
>
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild",
>>> revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
>>>
>> I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild ta
On Saturday 06 June 2009 23:10:40 walt wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > ...
> > You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild",
> > revdep-rebuild almost invariably returns null results...
>
> I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
>
> #emerge @preserv
Alan McKinnon wrote:
...
You will notice that after running "emerge @preserved-rebuild", revdep-rebuild
almost invariably returns null results...
I know I've used the @preserved-rebuild target in the past, but now:
#emerge @preserved-rebuild
!!! '@preserved-rebuild' is not a valid package ato
On Saturday 06 June 2009 18:23:26 walt wrote:
> William Kenworthy wrote:
> > After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
> > increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested "emerge
> > @preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
> > aft
William Kenworthy wrote:
After each update, these appear, and for libusb, the number slowly
increases (up to 185 now). so far I have done the suggested "emerge
@preserved-rebuild", plus tried rebuilding every package mentioned but
after building, there is no change ...
!!! existing preserved li
14 matches
Mail list logo
