On Sat, Jun 21 2014, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:52 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> > The moral is always look for portage trying to downgrade packages and
>> > add the appropriate keyword entries when using this approach.
>> >
>>
>> The only issue with this is that you nev
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:20:52 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > The moral is always look for portage trying to downgrade packages and
> > add the appropriate keyword entries when using this approach.
> >
>
> The only issue with this is that you never get back to stable that way.
You will, it just
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
> The moral is always look for portage trying to downgrade packages and add
> the appropriate keyword entries when using this approach.
>
The only issue with this is that you never get back to stable that way.
What I usually do if I am trac
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:33:26 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> These dependency chains can get long and complex, so best is usually to
> look at the whole thing and see exactly what is going on. Most often you
> have something in world that is keyworded, or the current version is
> still ~arch
Anothe
On 20/06/2014 00:22, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19 2014, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2014 21:17, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
>>>
>>> There are a few more again with "no parents ...". Then comes one that I
>>> can't understand
>>>
>>> virtual/libintl:0
>>>
>>> (virtual/libintl-
On 20/06/2014 00:22, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19 2014, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> On 19/06/2014 21:17, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
>>>
>>> There are a few more again with "no parents ...". Then comes one that I
>>> can't understand
>>>
>>> virtual/libintl:0
>>>
>>> (virtual/libintl-
On Thu, Jun 19 2014, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 19/06/2014 21:17, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
>>
>> There are a few more again with "no parents ...". Then comes one that I
>> can't understand
>>
>> virtual/libintl:0
>>
>> (virtual/libintl-0-r1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
On 19/06/2014 23:20, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>> First thing: I understand why you want to go testing -> stable, but at
>> least leave portage unstable. A *lot* of ancient stuff has been fixed in
>> ~arch, it's perfectly safe and robust, and mo
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> First thing: I understand why you want to go testing -> stable, but at
> least leave portage unstable. A *lot* of ancient stuff has been fixed in
> ~arch, it's perfectly safe and robust, and most especially all that
> stupid "no parents that
On 19/06/2014 21:17, gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:
> (I am in the months long process of converting from testing to stable,
> using the bothwick "going stable" method; but I don't believe that is
> related to the question I am asking.)
>
> I was away for several days and have a number of problem with my
(I am in the months long process of converting from testing to stable,
using the bothwick "going stable" method; but I don't believe that is
related to the question I am asking.)
I was away for several days and have a number of problem with my
normally-daily update world. Some may be due to the t
11 matches
Mail list logo
