Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>> ...
>> > I STRONGLY beg to disagree! The "~amd64" notation is used to ACCEPT a
>> > package even though it is (still) classified as UNSTABLE.
>>
>> This is package-manager terminology [...]
>
> No it's USER terminology. It's what users are confronted with when
Martin,
On Sunday, 2020-05-03 15:55:59 -, you wrote:
> ...
> > I STRONGLY beg to disagree! The "~amd64" notation is used to ACCEPT a
> > package even though it is (still) classified as UNSTABLE.
>
> This is package-manager terminology which has much less states since
> a package manager
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
> I STRONGLY beg to disagree! The "~amd64" notation is used to ACCEPT a
> package even though it is (still) classified as UNSTABLE.
This is package-manager terminology which has much less states since
a package manager needs no fine distinctions about the reasons of
Martin,
On Thursday, 2020-04-30 17:20:08 -, you wrote:
> ...
> >>=app-crypt/tpm2-tss-2.2.3-r1 ~amd64
>
> Ah! That explains it.
>
> > But this only means that I accept an unstable package here, not that
> > these versions are regarded stable.
>
> It is stabe according to the local
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>
> Yes. To satisfy the requirements of package "sys-apps/fwupd" I long ago
> added the line
>
>>=app-crypt/tpm2-tss-2.2.3-r1 ~amd64
Ah! That explains it.
> But this only means that I accept an unstable package here, not that
> these versions are regarded
Martin,
On Friday, 2020-04-24 17:32:09 -, you wrote:
> ...
> Maybe you run an unstable system, that is ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~amd64'?
No.
> Or do you have a corresponding entry in package.{accept_,}keywords?
Yes. To satisfy the requirements of package "sys-apps/fwupd" I long ago
added the
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>
>> ...
>> I exported ARCH="x86_64" and did eix-update, but still:
>>
>> % F=':\n' eix --format '' -e tpm2-tss
>> 2.2.3-r2:
>> 2.3.3:
>
> Did you check with "eix --print ARCH"?
Sure.
> but rather what the command "arch" is returning.
No. It's what it gets from the
Martin,
On Wednesday, 2020-04-22 19:48:47 -, you wrote:
> ...
> I exported ARCH="x86_64" and did eix-update, but still:
>
> % F=':\n' eix --format '' -e tpm2-tss
> 2.2.3-r2:
> 2.3.3:
Did you check with "eix --print ARCH"? I start suspecting that it's not
the value of environment
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>> >app-crypt/tpm2-tss 2.2.3-r21 1
>> >app-crypt/tpm2-tss 2.3.3 1 1
>>
>> This is strange: Both versions are only ~amd64, and in your previous
>> posting the output for {isstable} was indeed 0.
>
> No. It was only 0 in the output of the
On 4/22/20 6:41 AM, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
Martin,
On Tuesday, 2020-04-21 18:02:37 -, you wrote:
...
DEFAULT_ARCH is normally not used, because it should be set in
the profile. Does
eix --print ARCH
also show amd64?
BINGO! No, it doesn't:
$ eix --print ARCH
x86_64
$
Martin,
On Tuesday, 2020-04-21 18:02:37 -, you wrote:
> ...
> DEFAULT_ARCH is normally not used, because it should be set in
> the profile. Does
> eix --print ARCH
> also show amd64?
BINGO! No, it doesn't:
$ eix --print ARCH
x86_64
$
And that rings a bell: for historical
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
> Martin,
>
> On Monday, 2020-04-20 18:21:00 -, you wrote:
>
>> ...
>> >app-crypt/tpm2-tss 2.3.3 0 1
>> ...
>> The second value depends on your ARCH;
>> Since {isunstable} fails, I suppose that your ARCH is not amd64.
>
>$ eix --dump | grep
Martin,
On Monday, 2020-04-20 18:21:00 -, you wrote:
> ...
> >app-crypt/tpm2-tss 2.3.3 0 1
> ...
> The second value depends on your ARCH;
> Since {isunstable} fails, I suppose that your ARCH is not amd64.
$ eix --dump | grep DEFAULT_ARCH
DEFAULT_ARCH="amd64"
Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
> 1. Why do the package properties "isstable" and "!isunstable" differ
>from each other in four out of five output lines?
isstable means that a package is ARCH,
isunstable means that it is ~ARCH (for your ARCH).
For other arches there is isalienstable.
Your
14 matches
Mail list logo
