Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On 2013-08-28 7:24 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable??? Give it a chance! It's only just come out of rc. Until recently it wasn't even available in testing without umasking. Ok, sorry, I totally missed the s

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:04:39 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > So... is 2.2 *ever* going to go stable??? Give it a chance! It's only just come out of rc. Until recently it wasn't even available in testing without umasking. -- Neil Bothwick Does fuzzy logic tickle? signature.asc Description: PGP sig

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On 28/08/2013 13:04, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-08-27 5:27 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: >> I was away for two weeks. I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in >> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree). >> >> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the c

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On 2013-08-27 5:27 PM, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: I was away for two weeks. I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree). Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands from 2.1.x.y will continue to work? I kn

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:27:30 -0400, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands > from 2.1.x.y will continue to work? I know that several readers have > used 2.2 for years with success. The commands will, but there may be better alternatives

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

On Tue, Aug 27 2013, Dale wrote: > gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: >> I was away for two weeks. I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in >> testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree). >> >> Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands >> from 2.1.x.y will

Re: [gentoo-user] portage 2.2 in ~amd64

gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > I was away for two weeks. I just resynced and see that 2.2.1 is now in > testing (and my current version 2.1.13.1 is not in the tree). > > Am I correct in believing that when I upgrade to 2.2.1, all the commands > from 2.1.x.y will continue to work? I know that several r

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 23:21, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> You mathematician chaps could probably resolve this one nicely for >> yourselves by treating it as just another mangle by Applied >> Mathematicians <== joke :-) > > Careful what you joke about

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, Jul 24 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote: > You mathematician chaps could probably resolve this one nicely for > yourselves by treating it as just another mangle by Applied > Mathematicians <== joke :-) Careful what you joke about. The New York University comp sci dept (my home) is pa

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 22:15, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24 2013, Willie WY Wong wrote: > >> Speaking as a mathematician (and A. Gottlieb will agree with me), I >> would be rather annoyed that they chose (if this is not a misquote >> from the original proposed documentation) to use '/' for set

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, Jul 24 2013, Willie WY Wong wrote: > Speaking as a mathematician (and A. Gottlieb will agree with me), I > would be rather annoyed that they chose (if this is not a misquote > from the original proposed documentation) to use '/' for set > difference instead of '\' as it is supposed to be

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:46:59PM +0200, Penguin Lover Alan McKinnon squawked: > @set1+@set2/@set3 reduces to: > > all the elements of set1 and set2 without the elements that are in set3 > (/ is difference). > Speaking as a mathematician (and A. Gottlieb will agree with me), I would be rather a

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 07/24/2013 09:27 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > I think it's the former. But I've been known to be wrong on things > (lately, more often than not...) > > Just looked on The Google, and there's no consensus I can find. Best > advice seems to be that union and difference are equal precedence so th

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 15:20, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> However, kmail sucks and akonadi sucks moar, so define for yourself >> > >> > @suckykde >> > kdepim-meta >> > >> > And add to your world sets: >> > >> > @kde+@kdedev/@suckykde >> > > I see, what about operator precedence, is that equivalent to > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:46:59 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > What does that mean? set1 and one of set2 or set 3? Or both set1 and > > set2 or set3 only? I'm not sure how this would be useful but I can > > certainly see how it would cause confusion and problems, but I hadn't > > heard if it before.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 12:52, Pavel Volkov wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Yohan Pereira > wrote: > > On 24/07/13 at 02:00pm, Pavel Volkov wrote: > > It initially suported set arithmetic (you could writes expressions > like > > "@set1+@set

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Yohan Pereira wrote: > On 24/07/13 at 02:00pm, Pavel Volkov wrote: > > It initially suported set arithmetic (you could writes expressions like > > "@set1+@set2/@set3"), I wonder why it was dropped :) > > Wow thats intresting. What could the / operator possibly do i

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 12:17, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:00:54 +0400, Pavel Volkov wrote: > >> It initially suported set arithmetic (you could writes expressions like >> "@set1+@set2/@set3"), I wonder why it was dropped :) > > What does that mean? set1 and one of set2 or set 3? Or both

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:00:54 +0400, Pavel Volkov wrote: > It initially suported set arithmetic (you could writes expressions like > "@set1+@set2/@set3"), I wonder why it was dropped :) What does that mean? set1 and one of set2 or set 3? Or both set1 and set2 or set3 only? I'm not sure how this wo

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/13 at 02:00pm, Pavel Volkov wrote: > It initially suported set arithmetic (you could writes expressions like > "@set1+@set2/@set3"), I wonder why it was dropped :) Wow thats intresting. What could the / operator possibly do in the case of sets? -- - Yohan Pereira The difference betwee

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2

On 24/07/2013 12:00, Pavel Volkov wrote: > What is the status or portage 2.2? > It takes so long to get out of alpha. Has anyone here had any serious > problems with it? I've been using it for a a few years without any > accidents. Just wondering if I should be prepared for the worst. > I also reme

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Saturday 15 November 2008 16:23:51 Neil Bothwick wrote: > Yes, in the same way that disconnecting the warning lamp fixes the low oil > pressure problem in your car :( I agree that this is a wrong way to fix it. First of all am gonna fill a bug about amarok and I ll act accordingly Thanks --

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

Yes, in the same way that disconnecting the warning lamp fixes the low oil pressure problem in your car :( -- Neil Bothwick On 15 Nov 2008, 2:06 PM, "Markos Chandras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Saturday 15 November 2008 14:27:49 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:40:25 +0200

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Saturday 15 November 2008 14:27:49 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:40:25 +0200, Markos Chandras wrote: > > > > I do not have collision-protect on FEATURES, portage MUST merge the > > > > package even if it warns me... > > > > This is my FEATURES line > > > > FEATURES="parallel-fetc

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 10:40:25 +0200, Markos Chandras wrote: > > > I do not have collision-protect on FEATURES, portage MUST merge the > > > package even if it warns me... > This is my FEATURES line > > FEATURES="parallel-fetch buildpkg candy fixpackages ccache sandbox" You don't have -collisio

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Saturday 15 November 2008 01:24:18 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Markos Chandras > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Saturday 15 November 2008 01:07:33 Paul Hartman wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Markos Chandras > >> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Markos Chandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 15 November 2008 01:07:33 Paul Hartman wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Markos Chandras >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > >> > I ve upgraded to portage-2.2 . From that time i am havin

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Saturday 15 November 2008 01:07:33 Paul Hartman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Markos Chandras > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I ve upgraded to portage-2.2 . From that time i am having a problem. When > > portage finds a collision between two files during the merge

Re: [gentoo-user] portage-2.2 + collision protect

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Markos Chandras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I ve upgraded to portage-2.2 . From that time i am having a problem. When > portage finds a collision between two files during the merge time , it > complains > and doesnt merge the new package. The weird thin