Neil Bothwick writes:
> You can win, by running it reasonably often and actually doing something
> about the output. Ignore a few lines and they soon become a few more, and
> then a few more still...
One thing I have noticed in its output is where it lists "installed
packages with a version not
On Friday, April 03, 2015 8:52:18 AM Stroller wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 April 2015, at 4:37 pm, Grant Edwards
wrote:
> >
> > I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
> > configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
> > break-alike.
>
> What's bad ab
On 5 April 2015 14:27:27 BST, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Neil Bothwick
> wrote:
> >
> > Or leave /etc/portage full of cruft and crap and fix any problem it
> may
> > cause later on, when you have even less time ;-)
> >
>
> Hmm, have an hour of free time now, at the cos
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> Or leave /etc/portage full of cruft and crap and fix any problem it may
> cause later on, when you have even less time ;-)
>
Hmm, have an hour of free time now, at the cost of maybe having an
hour less of free time a year from now, maybe.
On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 07:21:01 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > It's like being a teenager again, the longer you leave tidying your
> > room, the longer it takes when your mum makes you do it :)
> >
>
> Don't want to harp on it, but I almost never have to clean my world
> file, and when I do I don't
On Sun, 05 Apr 2015 04:41:33 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > I got into that situation once, you just need to bite the bullet and
> > work through the output. It's not as bad as it looks as the same
> > entry can cause multiple reports, so once you clean up a couple of
> > entries the output can get signif
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> It's like being a teenager again, the longer you leave tidying your room,
> the longer it takes when your mum makes you do it :)
>
Don't want to harp on it, but I almost never have to clean my world
file, and when I do I don't need any tools
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2015 02:24:13 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
It seems you can't win with that thing. LOL
>>> You can win, by running it reasonably often and actually doing
>>> something about the output. Ignore a few lines and they soon become a
>>> few more, and then a few mor
On Sun, 05 Apr 2015 02:24:13 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> It seems you can't win with that thing. LOL
> > You can win, by running it reasonably often and actually doing
> > something about the output. Ignore a few lines and they soon become a
> > few more, and then a few more still...
> Thing is,
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 07:33:06 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
eix-test-obsolete
>>> Many thanks, it certainly seems to.
>>>
>>> It seems to do a bit more besides, unruly in its verboseness, but I
>>> won't bother trying to interpret the rest of its output.
>> It's one reason I do
On Sat, 4 Apr 2015 10:39:18 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> > eix-test-obsolete
>
> Many thanks, it certainly seems to.
>
> It seems to do a bit more besides, unruly in its verboseness, but I
> won't bother trying to interpret the rest of its output.
eix-test-obsolete is only a shell script that ca
On Sat, 04 Apr 2015 07:33:06 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> eix-test-obsolete
> > Many thanks, it certainly seems to.
> >
> > It seems to do a bit more besides, unruly in its verboseness, but I
> > won't bother trying to interpret the rest of its output.
> It's one reason I don't use it much. It spi
Stroller wrote:
> On Fri, 3 April 2015, at 9:30 am, Dale wrote:
>>> Slightly OT, but are there any tools for cleaning out old entries?
>> I think this will do what you want.
>>
>> eix-test-obsolete
> Many thanks, it certainly seems to.
>
> It seems to do a bit more besides, unruly in its verbosen
On Fri, 3 April 2015, at 9:30 am, Dale wrote:
>>
>> Slightly OT, but are there any tools for cleaning out old entries?
>
> I think this will do what you want.
>
> eix-test-obsolete
Many thanks, it certainly seems to.
It seems to do a bit more besides, unruly in its verboseness, but I won't
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:00:52 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> Slightly OT, but are there any tools for cleaning out old entries?
>
> I could write a script to go through package.keywords line by line and,
> for packages where the entry is =package-version.1.2.3, delete those
> lines where a newer version
Stroller wrote:
> On Thu, 2 April 2015, at 5:24 pm, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> The alternative is what I have now - a 1200 line package.keywords file
>> that tells portage to build half the system 32-bit, when I could care
>> less …
> Slightly OT, but are there any tools for cleaning out old entries?
On Thu, 2 April 2015, at 5:24 pm, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> The alternative is what I have now - a 1200 line package.keywords file
> that tells portage to build half the system 32-bit, when I could care
> less …
Slightly OT, but are there any tools for cleaning out old entries?
I could write a
On Fri, 3 April 2015, at 12:25 am, Mick wrote:
>
> When people you need to communicate with on MSWindows boxes only know how to
> manage Skype-ware and you don't run a SIP proxy server yourself, your choices
> reduce somewhat.
We'll have to reincarnate Alexander Graham Bell and see if he can
On Thu, 2 April 2015, at 4:37 pm, Grant Edwards
wrote:
>
> I prefer it this way. I do not want all the nice easy-to read/edit
> configuration stuff in /etc/portage encrypted some Windows Registry
> break-alike.
What's bad about the Windows registry is that its proprietary file format is
both
On Friday 03 Apr 2015 00:08:53 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:40:20AM +0200, me, myself and I wrote:
> > I used this opportunity to finally rid myself of Skype entirely. Nobody
> > knows how it’s still possible to use that Microsoft infested spyware on
> > Linux anway,
>
>
On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 12:40:20AM +0200, me, myself and I wrote:
> I used this opportunity to finally rid myself of Skype entirely. Nobody
> knows how it’s still possible to use that Microsoft infested spyware on Linux
> anway,
how it’s possible → how long it’s still possible
--
Gruß | Greetin
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:23:21AM +0100, Mick wrote:
> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
> use
> them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no alternative at present, but
>
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:05:28 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> I think we've just gotten into a mode where we automate user
> configuration instead of eliminating the need for it.
That's a good way of looking at it.
Most USE flags are not set by the user by by the profile. By selecting a
particular pr
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 14:05:28 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Róbert Čerňanský
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:31:15 +0100
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> Hmm ... I don't think setting
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:31:15 +0100
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>>
>> > >> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary,
>> > >> unless you want to have 32bit
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:31:15 +0100
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
> > >> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary,
> > >> unless you want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these
> > >> exist for, whether you u
On 31/03/2015 02:46, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:42:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>
I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings
for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed -
for example when I stop using the pack
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 19:46:39 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Yea. We just batting ideas around. For me tho, it just turned into a
> nightmare. If I needed to change something, which file is it in? At
> one time I had a dozen or so files and digging through each one of them
> wastes time. If I have just
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:42:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>>> I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings
>>> for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed -
>>> for example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
>>> com
On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 19:53:18 +0200 "Stefan G. Weichinger"
wrote:
>
> I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
> correct in the end
Have you tried to unmerge all the emulation packages before
updating the system, as advised by the news?
I did it before the full u
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 08:42:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings
> > for each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed -
> > for example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
> > comment every entry in the
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file
just grew my a huge amount.
>>> You package.use has grown by one filesys
On Monday 30 March 2015 13:40:12 Neil Bothwick wrote:
[Re package.use]
> I find the separate files much easier to manage as all the settings for
> each package are kept separate, and easily removed or changed - for
> example when I stop using the package. The alternative would be to
> comment eve
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 05:59:24 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file
> >> just grew my a huge amount.
> > You package.use has grown by one filesystem block at most, how m
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>> Dang. I had to add about 90 packages to my package.use and some more to
>> the keyword file.
>>
>> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file just
>> grew my a huge amount.
> You package.use has g
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:02 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
> OK, then so why do I have to edit files to tell the system to USE this
> and that after the system tells me it needs that ... ?
>
> Why isn't this taken care of within portage itself?
>
> I don't *want* to decide 32bit or not ... (I
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:12:59 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Dang. I had to add about 90 packages to my package.use and some more to
> the keyword file.
>
> I wonder if make.conf would be better in my case too? My use file just
> grew my a huge amount.
You package.use has grown by one filesystem block
On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 12:02:23 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> >> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary,
> >> unless you want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist
> >> for, whether you use them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no
> >> alternative
On 30/03/2015 12:02, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> On 30.03.2015 11:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
>>> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
>>> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
>>> use
>
On 30.03.2015 11:39, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
>> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
>> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
>> use
>> them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no alter
On 30/03/2015 11:23, Mick wrote:
> Hmm ... I don't think setting abi_x86_32 globally is necessary, unless you
> want to have 32bit libs for ALL packages that these exist for, whether you
> use
> them or not. I mean that for Skype you have no alternative at present, but
> if
> you don't use Sk
On Monday 30 Mar 2015 09:58:37 Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> On 30.03.2015 00:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> I like Gentoo, you all know, but things like that scare me off a bit.
> >
> > This is Gentoo, it's all about choice. Sometimes there's a downside,
> > like a very long package.use to define
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 00:10, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>> Am 29.03.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>>
I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
correct in the end
>>>
>>>
>>> It's a horrible solution, you are right. The problem is that
On Sunday 29 March 2015 20:12:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> ... I think Michael posted the correct cause up-thread:
>
> "If you're on stable, you'll need to keyword qt-4.8.6 in its entirety.
> You can't mix and match versions, and 4.8.6 is the only one that
> supports multilib."
Something needs clar
On 30.03.2015 00:51, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I like Gentoo, you all know, but things like that scare me off a bit.
>
> This is Gentoo, it's all about choice. Sometimes there's a downside,
> like a very long package.use to define to Portage exactly what your
> choice really is.
I don't really kno
On Sunday 29 March 2015 17:58:46 Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:43:42 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mick wrote:
> > > I've also ended up with qt blockers, that I do not seem capable to
> > > overcome yet. KDE wants qt 4.8.5 installed which is blocking qt
> > > 4.8.6. How did you go about
On 30/03/2015 00:10, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Am 29.03.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>
>>> I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
>>> correct in the end
>>
>>
>>
>> It's a horrible solution, you are right. The problem is that it's not
>> your 32 bit ap
On 03/30/2015 12:10 AM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> My main system isn't that special at all, gnome, systemd, libreoffice,
> thunderbird, some browsers ... Stuff like that makes me really wonder
> if I spend too much of my life time struggling with doing *updates* I
> like Gentoo, you all know,
Am 29.03.2015 um 20:16 schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>> I have to do that for 195 ebuilds here and really wonder if that is
>> correct in the end
>
>
>
> It's a horrible solution, you are right. The problem is that it's not
> your 32 bit apps that have to be listed, it's all the libs and deps the
On 29/03/2015 19:53, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> On 29.03.2015 19:30, Mick wrote:
>
>>> I went through that exercise about a month ago, and I needed
>>> this:
>>>
>>> /etc/portage/package.use/abi_x86_32:
=dev-qt/qtwebkit-4.8.6-r1:4 abi_x86_32 =dev-qt/qtgui-4.8.6-r1:4
abi_x86_32 =dev-qt
On 29/03/2015 19:30, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 18:07:50 Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 29/03/2015 18:21, Mick wrote:
>>> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 29.03.2015 19:30, Mick wrote:
>> I went through that exercise about a month ago, and I needed
>> this:
>>
>> /etc/portage/package.use/abi_x86_32:
>>> =dev-qt/qtwebkit-4.8.6-r1:4 abi_x86_32 =dev-qt/qtgui-4.8.6-r1:4
>>> abi_x86_32 =dev-qt/qtdbus-4
On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 18:07:50 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 29/03/2015 18:21, Mick wrote:
> > On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
> >> On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
> >>> suggestions for that when using
Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:43:42 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mick wrote:
>
> > > I've also ended up with qt blockers, that I do not seem capable to
> > > overcome yet. KDE wants qt 4.8.5 installed which is blocking qt
> > > 4.8.6. How did you go about overcoming this?
> >
> > I
On 29/03/2015 18:21, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
>> On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
>>> suggestions for that when using the --autounmask feature.
>>
>> The first thing what happens
On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:43:42 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mick wrote:
> > I've also ended up with qt blockers, that I do not seem capable to
> > overcome yet. KDE wants qt 4.8.5 installed which is blocking qt
> > 4.8.6. How did you go about overcoming this?
>
> I also have dev-qt/qtcore-4.8.5
Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
> > On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
> > > suggestions for that when using the --autounmask feature.
> >
> > The first thing what happens here is tha
On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 17:08:32 Yanestra wrote:
> On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
> > suggestions for that when using the --autounmask feature.
>
> The first thing what happens here is that kde wants to upgrade bec
On 03/29/2015 05:03 PM, waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> "In most of the cases, Portage will be able to deliver correct
> suggestions for that when using the --autounmask feature.
The first thing what happens here is that kde wants to upgrade because
qtchooser's mask miraculously becomes ignored. And qt
On Sunday 29 Mar 2015 16:20:31 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Sunday 29 March 2015 17:03:50 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I'm using grub so I had to add these two lines to packages.use
> >
> > sys-libs/ncurses abi_x86_32
> > sys-libs/gpm abi_x86_32
>
> I don't know how grub is connected, but I had to
On Sunday 29 March 2015 17:03:50 waben...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm using grub so I had to add these two lines to packages.use
>
> sys-libs/ncurses abi_x86_32
> sys-libs/gpm abi_x86_32
I don't know how grub is connected, but I had to add those two as well.
> and after that doing the following comm
Yanestra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just one question: I had a working system yesterday afternoon, but
> after the latest eix-sync my mask settings get ignored and the whole
> system is about to be updated.
>
> I have read the news message, and I am baffled. What can I do to keep
> my working system as i
On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Yanestra wrote:
>
> just one question: I had a working system yesterday afternoon, but after
> the latest eix-sync my mask settings get ignored and the whole system is
> about to be updated.
>
> I have read the news message, and I am baffled. What can I do to keep
Hi,
just one question: I had a working system yesterday afternoon, but after
the latest eix-sync my mask settings get ignored and the whole system is
about to be updated.
I have read the news message, and I am baffled. What can I do to keep my
working system as it is?
Regards,
A Humble User
Ya
64 matches
Mail list logo
