Hi there!
It's done! I'm at ~x86 now. The upgrade went quite smooth - had to resolve
some blockers, and mask the new x.org 1.7 because it does not work at all
with ati-drivers.
**BUT:** After rebooting, I ran into a very nasty KDE4 bug. All
authentication dialogs did not work. So I had no KDE
On Friday 15 January 2010 15:04:12 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Some time ago, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:21:26 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I read here that running a full
> > > ~x86 system would probably be easier. And I'd like to try, bu
Some time ago, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:21:26 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I read here that running a full
> > ~x86 system would probably be easier. And I'd like to try, but while
> > going from x86 to ~x86 is easy, the other way is q
> I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I read here that running a full ~x86
> system would probably be easier. And I'd like to try, but while going from
> x86 to ~x86 is easy, the other way is quite hard, isn't it? If possible at
> all.
I just wanted to throw my two-cents in here, although much has
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 13 November 2009 01:21:49 Joshua Murphy wrote:
>> Useless? well, not exactly. ~amd64 marked packages in it are
>> redundant, but every box I put wine on runs git builds
>> (=app-emulation/wine- in the portage tree), and as such
On Friday 13 November 2009 01:21:49 Joshua Murphy wrote:
> Useless? well, not exactly. ~amd64 marked packages in it are
> redundant, but every box I put wine on runs git builds
> (=app-emulation/wine- in the portage tree), and as such has to
> have a "=app-emulation/wine- **" line in packag
Alan McKinnon schrieb:
> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
Good god, please don't ever do that.
>> I ran that command to just get an impression of
>> what changing $ACCEPT_KEYWORDS would do
>
> in that case emerge -p is better than emerge -a
>
> just in case you hit enter
On Friday 13 November 2009 00:46:00 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
> > Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> >> I'd emerge @system first, then reboot and make sure everything works
> >> correctly before updating the rest of @world.
> >
> > Good point, yes ... hmm, it was half way th
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
>> Neil Bothwick schrieb:
>>
>>> I'd emerge @system first, then reboot and make sure everything works
>>> correctly before updating the rest of @world.
>>
>> Good point, yes ... hmm, it was half way throug
On Friday 13 November 2009 00:36:11 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Marcus Wanner schrieb:
> > On 11/12/2009 5:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On Thursday 12 November 2009 00:12:06 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >>> I am now looking at some
> >>>
> >>> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
>
Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
> Neil Bothwick schrieb:
>
>> I'd emerge @system first, then reboot and make sure everything works
>> correctly before updating the rest of @world.
>
> Good point, yes ... hmm, it was half way through @world ... now I do
> @system and will see what happens. Thanks fo
Marcus Wanner schrieb:
> On 11/12/2009 5:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Thursday 12 November 2009 00:12:06 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>>> I am now looking at some
>>>
>>> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
>>
>> Good god, please don't ever do that.
>>
>> If you don't know why it's a
KH writes:
> Alex Schuster schrieb:
> > [snip]
> > Or net-misc/youtube-dl, which changes quite
> > frequently to adopt to youtube changes, and I want to always have the
> > newest version. [snip]
> see bgo 286366 and report you are fine with it. Maybe it will become
> stable, then.
>
> https://
Thanks for your replies, guys! They have been helpful. I think I know what
to do now. And that is... wait. Until I have some time to spare for this.
Then, after a backup, I will perform the migration. Now let's see that
this openrc and baselayout-2 is that I have read people talking about for
q
On 11/12/2009 5:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 00:12:06 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Roy Wright schrieb:
Also keep in mind that it's the ebuild that is "untested". The package
is usually what upstream has released as stable.
I haven't yet looked at it t
On Donnerstag 12 November 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 5. I can warn others using more stable OSes about deep changes coming down
> the tubes (X for instance. RHEL users are in for a big surprise sometime
> in the next 6 months to 5 years...)
>
friends using stable ask me if they hit a problem
On Thursday 12 November 2009 00:12:06 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Roy Wright schrieb:
> > Also keep in mind that it's the ebuild that is "untested". The package
> > is usually what upstream has released as stable.
>
> I haven't yet looked at it that way, good point.
>
> > My advice is if you a
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 19:51:26 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>
> > yes, it is easier to just go ~x86. Yes, it is very very very hard to go
> > back - easier to reinstall
>
> Isn't there a lot more work to do to keep it up to date? Seems to
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 18:36:23 Albert Hopkins wrote:
> So my advice is: pick and branch and stick with your own kind. It's far
> fewer headaches in the long run. And "unstable" isn't really unstable,
> it's "untested". There's a difference.
>
Actually it's not "untested", it's "still be
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> I'd emerge @system first, then reboot and make sure everything works
> correctly before updating the rest of @world.
Good point, yes ... hmm, it was half way through @world ... now I do
@system and will see what happens. Thanks for the hint, I should have
thought of that.
Marcus Wanner schrieb:
> How 'bout overnight :p
>
> That's what I'm doing, after reading that bit about the ebuilds and not
> the packages being unstable :D
Sure, me too :)
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:47:00 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> > I am now looking at some
> >
> > # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
>
> This gives me 464 packages (441 upgrades, 15 new, 6 in new slots, 2
> reinstalls, 4 uninstalls) ... phew ... maybe tomorrow ...
I'd emerge @s
On 11/11/2009 5:47 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
I am now looking at some
# ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
This gives me 464 packages (441 upgrades, 15 new, 6 in new slots, 2
reinstalls, 4 uninstalls) ... phew ... maybe tomorrow ...
;-)
Stefan G. Weichinger schrieb:
> I am now looking at some
>
> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~amd64" emerge -avuDN world
This gives me 464 packages (441 upgrades, 15 new, 6 in new slots, 2
reinstalls, 4 uninstalls) ... phew ... maybe tomorrow ...
;-)
whatever you decide to do. Please turn on the buildpkg option in make.conf. It
is a GOOD THING on stable, but even more so on unstable. Will save you a lot
of blood sweat and tears.
Albert Hopkins schrieb:
[snip]
But they are wrong ;-)
I'm actually against mixing testing and stable branches. Here's why.
People choose "stable" because they are under the impression that it's
somehow "safer" or "less troublesome" than "testing" (or what some
people call "unstable"). I'm not
Alex Schuster schrieb:
Hi there!
[snip]Or net-misc/youtube-dl, which changes quite
frequently to adopt to youtube changes, and I want to always have the
newest version. [snip]
Hi,
see bgo 286366 and report you are fine with it. Maybe it will become
stable, then.
https://bugs.gentoo.org/sho
Roy Wright schrieb:
> Also keep in mind that it's the ebuild that is "untested". The package
> is usually what upstream has released as stable.
I haven't yet looked at it that way, good point.
> My advice is if you are willing to upgrade at least weekly then go
> "untested", if you are willing
On Mittwoch 11 November 2009, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>
> > yes, it is easier to just go ~x86. Yes, it is very very very hard to go
> > back - easier to reinstall
>
> Isn't there a lot more work to do to keep it up to date? Seems to me
> tes
On Nov 11, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
So my advice is: pick and branch and stick with your own kind. It's
far
fewer headaches in the long run. And "unstable" isn't really
unstable,
it's "untested". There's a difference.
Also keep in mind that it's the ebuild that is "unte
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> yes, it is easier to just go ~x86. Yes, it is very very very hard to go back -
> easier to reinstall
>
Isn't there a lot more work to do to keep it up to date? Seems to me
testing packages are going to change more often and as not every o
Here's my take on this issue, and I've had this discussion with some
people on IRC as well and for the most part I think people will disagree
with me.
But they are wrong ;-)
I'm actually against mixing testing and stable branches. Here's why.
People choose "stable" because they are under the imp
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:04:44PM +0200, Penguin Lover Alan McKinnon squawked:
> On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:21:26 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Hi there!
>
> > I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I read here that running a full ~x86
> > system would probably be easier. And I'd like to try, but w
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:21:26 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Hi there!
> I wonder if it's worth the trouble. I read here that running a full ~x86
> system would probably be easier. And I'd like to try, but while going from
> x86 to ~x86 is easy, the other way is quite hard, isn't it? If possible
Hi there!
I am not running ~x86 at the moment. I like to stay on the safer side, and
it has not been too much trouble. Yet. There are things in have in
package.keywords, quite a lot actually.
Most packages are not a problem. Examples are games-fps/quake3, games-
fps/worldofpadman or games-strat
35 matches
Mail list logo
