quoth the Mike Kazantsev: > > ...or, you can accept mask and just downgrade udev (adding later, > incompatible versions to package.mask: ">=sys-fs/udev-..."). > I'd suggest issuing this command to see which one will suit your system:
Ok, I found the version of baselayout was masked for 'corruption', and masked udev-24-r2. Went ahead with my 'emerge -u system' to downgrade everything and libtool failed on the package verification. So another sync, and the issue seems to have sorted itself. Instead of downgrading a handful of packages, there were just a few updates including python. > > I don't understand why my currently installed udev wants the currently > > installed baselayout but 'system' wants an older one. > > That looks like expected behavior for me: udev in that profile is just > a bit ahead of the rest of the system, probably because of recent > baselayout masking, and I bet there should be a good reason to mask > something like that. I guess I had a preconceived notion that downgrading all those packages was somehow a 'bad' thing. Thanks for the help, and education. -d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
