Re: [gentoo-user] Glsa-Check -f Was [What is the recommended order of maintenance updates?]

2005-04-25 Thread Ow Mun Heng
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:56 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: Are etcat -v evolution [ I] 1.4.6 (0) [ I] 2.0.3-r2 (2.0) Hmm.. seems like that may be the case.. Thanks. -- Ow Mun Heng Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! Neuromancer 15:41:02 up 18:47, 7

Re: [gentoo-user] Glsa-Check -f Was [What is the recommended order of maintenance updates?]

2005-04-25 Thread William Kenworthy
I find glsa rarely lies, which is more than can be said about the other three: often one will pick something up but not the others. This also brings up one of the disadvantages of gentoo's slotting system - without running something like glsa, its quite possible (probable on an older system in

[gentoo-user] Glsa-Check -f Was [What is the recommended order of maintenance updates?]

2005-04-24 Thread Ow Mun Heng
On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 15:56 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: In my experience, you may get away with this regime for a short time on an almost new system, but it will almost invariably break an older system (due to emerge depclean) The safest/most reasonable order is emerge sync glsa-check

Re: [gentoo-user] Glsa-Check -f Was [What is the recommended order of maintenance updates?]

2005-04-24 Thread William Kenworthy
Are etcat -v evolution equery l evolution qpkg -i evolution consistent? This sometimes happens on older systems with upgrades that slot, and/or clean properly. glsa-check is a good way to pick this up BillK On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 11:10 +0800, Ow Mun Heng wrote: 200501-35 -- William