--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 08 April 2005 19:48, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> I think that even without this glep portage might be patched to sort or
> lists. Currently the first get picked. We might want to change that to
> preferring packages that do allready have an installed version above ones
> that don't.
This sho
Will do - I know I saw it once!!!
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 08 April 2005 09:21 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
even rebooted. How
On Friday 08 April 2005 09:21 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
> and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
> even rebooted. However, I did NOT have a symlink to 2.4 so who knows.
well if you can r
Nope. I got 2.4 when I logged in, did an emerge -uD system -p. I went back
and created the symlink to 2005.0 again and now it appears to work - I
even rebooted. However, I did NOT have a symlink to 2.4 so who knows.
Here's the output (before recreating the symlink)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] brett $ eme
>>Thanks for the suggestions, I've tried 2004.0 .1 .2 .3 with similar
>>results as below.
>
>
> you didnt use the one i suggested the 2nd time around ...
Opps, I didn't notice I was using the wrong directory!
Thanks for the help.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Friday 08 April 2005 08:35 pm, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> In short - what do we have to do to upgrade to a current profile on 2.6
> machines and get 2.6 gentoo-source updates, not 2.4.
if you use 'default-linux/x86/2005.0' as your profile, it should be giving you
2.6 kernels ... in order to get
Question here - I made the link to the 2005.0 profile on (NOT 2005.0/2.4)
a system that is 2.6.11 and has been on 2.6 for months. Tonight emerge
-uD system -p wants to "upgrade" me to a 2.4 kernel!!! Well, portage this
is a 2.6.x system - not 2.4 - duh! From what I found in the mail list
arc
On Friday 08 April 2005 08:24 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> >>!!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
> >>!!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
> >
> > so use 'default-x8
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
>
>>!!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
>>!!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
>
>
> so use 'default-x86-2004.2', emerge portage, and then switch to the cascading
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:57 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> !!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
> !!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
so use 'default-x86-2004.2', emerge portage, and then switch to the cascading
version
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gent
Francesco Riosa wrote:
> David Sparks wrote:
>
>> Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
>> a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
>>
>>
> because 2004.0 is the same as 1.4 (don't ask where I've readed it)
I tried linking to 2004.0 and got the same
On Friday 08 April 2005 07:35 pm, David Sparks wrote:
> Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted?
this was announced quite a while ago
> I tried symlinking make.profile to a newer profile and got this:
unlink that profile, update your portage to the latest version, and then set
the profile to defaul
David Sparks wrote:
Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
because 2004.0 is the same as 1.4 (don't ask where I've readed it)
# ls -ld make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root39 Nov 14 2003 make.profile ->
../u
Why was the x86-1.4 profile deleted? I have several machines that after
a `emerge sync` now have a non-functional profile:
# ls -ld make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root39 Nov 14 2003 make.profile ->
../usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4
# ls -ld ../usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-1.4
On Friday 08 April 2005 20:32, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Diego is more than welcome to play around with NetBSD, but officially the
> BSD team decided to worry about getting one flavor working nicely before
> moving on to porting another one.
Actually, as I don't know anything about NetBSD (well, I knew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:33AM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Pettenï wrote:
>
>>I was thinking of the virtual for future expansion on NetBSD and other, but
>>this is probably better done using an || PDEPEND when it will be neede
The adoption of MySQL is waiting for robbat2 finishing the exams
(devaway say april 22). Plus probably he will need few days of holidays
after ;-)
In the meantime can you fix/close theese bugs (that block 83011)?
85783 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - net-libs/libwww-5.4.0 patch to avoid
USE_OLD_FUNCTIONS i
On Thursday 07 April 2005 11:46 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1
sorry, ive been hacking on both the 3.3.5 and 3.4.3 snapshots lately and i
thought they were both made 20050110 ...
i am looking for 3.3.5.20050130-r1 to be tested for stable
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:35:19AM +, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> Uh, there isn't any such thing. If you mean this:
> Mon Mar 21 14:05:58 2005 >>> sys-devel/gcc-3.3.5.20050130-r1
> it's been stable on sparc for 2.5 weeks.
>
> Or did you mean this instead?
> gcc-3.4.3.20050110-r1
mike, I was te
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:46:35PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
> they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
it works nicely here. it compiles and can compile sed.
no bugs, no fun :(
--
stefan
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:19:06AM -0400, Dan Meltzer wrote:
> One thing... Maybe its just me... or maybe they are in no way related,
> but I seem to have heard of a lot more 'libtool' problems when using a
> snapshot version instead of a regularly numbered version, is there a
> reason?
Maybe you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Mike Frysinger wrote:
can stable uses of gcc-3.3.5-r1 upgrade to gcc-3.3.5.20050110-r1 and see if
they hit any fun and exciting bugs ?
Uh, there isn't any such thing. If you mean this:
Mon Mar 21 14:05:58 2005 >>> sys-devel/gcc-3.3.
One thing... Maybe its just me... or maybe they are in no way related,
but I seem to have heard of a lot more 'libtool' problems when using a
snapshot version instead of a regularly numbered version, is there a
reason?
On Apr 7, 2005 11:46 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> can stable
On Thursday 07 April 2005 15:20, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> if package.prefer contained "dev-java/kaffe" then:
>
>
>
> || (
> dev-java/blackdown-jdk
> dev-java/sun-jdk
> dev-java/kaffe
> )
>
> would be processed as:
>
>
>
>
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 07:28:31PM +0200, Adrian Lambeck wrote:
> Everybody thanks for the feedback to my GLEP(35).
> The discussion about it started on 2005/03/13.
>
> What I figured out so far is that some proposed changes are already covered
> in
> repoman.That is even better because some of
Hi,
#gentoo-uk are trying to organise Gentoo's attendance at the Linux World
UK Expo, if you're interested in attending/helping out, please have a
look at our co-ordination page on the Gentoo UK website:
http://gentoo.linux.co.uk/events/linuxworld05/
Please sign up and register for the event on
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:22:33AM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Pettenò wrote:
> I was thinking of the virtual for future expansion on NetBSD and other, but
> this is probably better done using an || PDEPEND when it will be needed.
That's interesting.
Is anybody planning or working on a NetBSD port of
On Thursday 07 April 2005 01:17, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> I was more talking about the virtual/pam-modules (or whatever). Having
> a a PDEPEND is just fine.
I was thinking of the virtual for future expansion on NetBSD and other, but
this is probably better done using an || PDEPEND when it will b
29 matches
Mail list logo
