On Friday 27 June 2014 21:58:23 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:39:29 -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box
at all. A little poking around revealed that the only thing that
needed it was thin- provisioning.
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote:
Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box at all. A
little poking around revealed that the only thing that needed it was thin-
provisioning. Once I'd added
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote:
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy
virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]
have been masked.
You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the
ruby18 RUBY_TARGET. It's not immediately clear which package that is
On Friday 27 June 2014 08:16:08 Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote:
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy
virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]
have been masked.
You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the
ruby18
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote:
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy
virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]
have been masked.
You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the
ruby18 RUBY_TARGET. It's not
Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote:
On Friday 27 June 2014 08:16:08 Hans de Graaff wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote:
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy
virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]
have been masked.
You still have packages on your
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:39:29 -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote:
Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box
at all. A little poking around revealed that the only thing that
needed it was thin- provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE
flags and recompiled lvm2
7 matches
Mail list logo
