Steve [Gentoo] wrote:
>
> The only way in which I'm not yet as convinced as you are is with
> respect to dependencies. I'm comfortable with the idea that I browse
> the bugs to verify that none of the issues affect my install directly -
> then to accept an unstable version of a specific package..
Holly Bostick wrote:
The thing is Portage doesn't *remember* ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, beyond the
original compile in which it is used. So if you use it, and keep the
package, as soon as you do an emerge -u world, Portage will try to
downgrade the package to the last stable version, which is the only
Steve [Gentoo] wrote:
> Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time?
> What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and
> specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked?
I *think* it is something along the lines of "30 days without a bug",
not 100% sure thoug
Steve [Gentoo] schreef:
> when I use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in place of USE it now behaves just how I had
> previously expected it should have done.
>
> # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -uD subversion
>
> This does what I'd originally intended to try... (and doesn't force me
> to remember how to spell
Petteri Räty wrote:
What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and
specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked?
At least a month and there can't be any major bugs reported to
bugs.gentoo.org. About specifics on Subversion you need to ask its
maintainer. It will stay maske
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve [Gentoo] wrote:
> Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time?
> What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and
> specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked?
At least a month and there can't be any ma
Marco Matthies wrote:
Gentoo leaves packages in unstable for a default period of time to make sure
they work allright. If you want the newest version of a package, you must tell
portage to do so by putting the appropriate stuff (subversion and it's
dependencies) in /etc/portage/package.keywor
Steve [Gentoo] wrote:
> I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been
> eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new "reserved
> checkout" - but nothing seems to have moved forward.
you must have missed this link from the gentoo homepage (on the left):
http://pa
Steve [Gentoo] wrote:
> I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been
> eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new "reserved
> checkout" - but nothing seems to have moved forward.
>
> Portage (by default) still gives me version 1.1.3... but version 1.2
> has b
9 matches
Mail list logo
