Geralt wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Neil Bothwick
> wrote:
> > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > recent portage releases.
> are you sure that his works in this case? This
2009/1/16 Dale
> Alejandro wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>>
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
> >
> > > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the
> > block
> > > > for you. Blocks marked with a b
Alejandro wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>>
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
>
> > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the
> block
> > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
>
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:59:32 -0200, Alejandro wrote:
> > That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
> > stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first
> > appeared on ~arch systems.
> Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the
>
2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
>
> > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > > recent portage releases.
>
> > are you sure that his works in thi
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
> > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > recent portage releases.
> are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
> t
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>>Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
>> system emerge, correct?
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>>Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
>> system emerge, correct?
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
> system emerge, correct?
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123 [20070724] 0 kB [?=>0]
> [ebuild U ] app-arch/lzma-utils-4
Hi,
I have a machine I haven't touched in about 6 months that I need to
update. I've got one block that tells me (correctly) that it's part of
system. It should be as I'm updating system.
Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
system emerge, correct?
I have alrea
10 matches
Mail list logo