On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:06:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > I agree that the tree should be in sync, but how come I was able to
> > unmerge the package? It must keep the information somewhere -- and it
> > didn't tell me anything about having packages with no ebuilds -- that
> > would have been
On Sunday 12 December 2010 21:41:08 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> One thing that is NOT a solution is to not delete the ebuild.
Eh? Not deleting the ebuild is not a solution? Is that what you meant to
say?
--
Rgds
Peter. Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23.
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> > cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> >
> >> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:56 on Monday 13 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> > One thing that is NOT a solution is to not delete the ebuild. That
> > results in your tree being out of sync with upstream. That is not
> > allowed.
>
> I agree that the tree should be
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
>
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> > >
> > > cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> > > > Mar
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
>
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
>> >
>> > cov...@ccs.covici.com did
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:10 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> >
> > cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> > > Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 12
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
> cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
>
> > Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> > > > I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
> > > > gi
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:35 on Sunday 12 December 2010,
cov...@ccs.covici.com did opine thusly:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> > > I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
> > > gives the rather strange message:
> > >
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> > I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
> > gives the rather strange message:
> > Calculating dependencies... done!
> >
> > emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "dev-tex/mplib:0".
> > (dependency
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:48 AM, wrote:
> I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
> gives the rather strange message:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
>
> emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "dev-tex/mplib:0".
> (dependency required by "@preserved-rebuild")
I have a fair number of preserved-libs, but it will not run at all and
gives the rather strange message:
Calculating dependencies... done!
emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy "dev-tex/mplib:0".
(dependency required by "@preserved-rebuild")
Now I have no such package and an eix seems to indica
12 matches
Mail list logo
