On Tuesday 13 April 2010 16:49:44 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 13 Apr, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Monday 12 April 2010 16:55:38 Paul Hartman wrote:
> >> I've been using portage unmasked for a very long time and don't
> >> remember having any portage-related problems. I'm sure there must be
> >> so
On Tuesday 13 April 2010 15:49:44 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 13 Apr, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > As far as I know, that's the only thing preventing release of v2,
> > and I think it's been fixed anyway.
>
> No, I don't think so.
> Just recently, I had to unmerge then emerge wxpython since
> emerge
On 13 Apr, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 16:55:38 Paul Hartman wrote:
>
>> I've been using portage unmasked for a very long time and don't
>> remember having any portage-related problems. I'm sure there must be
>> some (or else why is it still RC?) but for me the new features are
On Monday 12 April 2010 16:55:38 Paul Hartman wrote:
> I've been using portage unmasked for a very long time and don't
> remember having any portage-related problems. I'm sure there must be
> some (or else why is it still RC?) but for me the new features are
> worth the potential risk of using les
Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2010-04-12 12:23 PM, Dale wrote:
+1 I been using the latest portage for a long time too. I don't recall
any problems with it and the new features sure do help.
If you keyword portage, you need to do the same for its friends. Mainly
gentoolkit and eix. They seem to go
On 2010-04-12 12:23 PM, Dale wrote:
> +1 I been using the latest portage for a long time too. I don't recall
> any problems with it and the new features sure do help.
>
> If you keyword portage, you need to do the same for its friends. Mainly
> gentoolkit and eix. They seem to go together bett
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:13:26 -0700
> schrieb Mark Knecht :
>
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:11:53 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Doing system first makes good sense. Then you can u
Paul Hartman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2010-04-12 11:05 AM, Paul Hartman wrote:
I use the --keep-going always, it was a great addition and especially
helpful when there is a bad package that won't compile for a week or
two, it makes it easier to jus
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2010-04-12 11:05 AM, Paul Hartman wrote:
>> I use the --keep-going always, it was a great addition and especially
>> helpful when there is a bad package that won't compile for a week or
>> two, it makes it easier to just ignore it.
>
> Hopefu
On 2010-04-12 11:05 AM, Paul Hartman wrote:
> I use the --keep-going always, it was a great addition and especially
> helpful when there is a bad package that won't compile for a week or
> two, it makes it easier to just ignore it.
Hopefully no one will mind a slight OT question, but still related
>
> when there is a bad package that won't compile for a week or two
I've already seen packages doing that, but they shouldn't happen, right? :-)
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:13:26 -0700
> schrieb Mark Knecht :
>> A couple of packages in this OpenRC upgrade aren't building. I hope
>> they are less important. So far groff and help2man have failed so I
>> did --resume --skip-first and moved on f
Am Sun, 11 Apr 2010 17:13:26 -0700
schrieb Mark Knecht :
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:11:53 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >
> >> > Doing system first makes good sense. Then you can update your config
> >> > files, follow the openrc update etc an
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> So help2man won't build due to some missing perl module.
>
> I'm assuming this isn't bad enough to stop a reboot from being
> successful but @system is @system so no reboot until I hear something
> back. (Or I get bored waiting...) ;-)
>
> Che
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of packages in this OpenRC upgrade aren't building. I hope
>> they are less important. So far groff and help2man have failed so I
>> did --resume --skip-first and moved on f
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> A couple of packages in this OpenRC upgrade aren't building. I hope
> they are less important. So far groff and help2man have failed so I
> did --resume --skip-first and moved on for now.
>
So it's done and I'm editing. In /etc/init.d I se
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:11:53 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> > Doing system first makes good sense. Then you can update your config
>> > files, follow the openrc update etc and then reboot. The world part of
>> > the update will take quite a w
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 16:11:53 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Doing system first makes good sense. Then you can update your config
> > files, follow the openrc update etc and then reboot. The world part of
> > the update will take quite a while, especially if you use KDE or
> > GNOME.
>
> Less tha
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:59:07 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> 1) I don't see any mention of hald & dbus in the upgrade guide. I
>> currently have them turned on. Are they still necessary? I know hald
>> is going away one of these days. Is it to
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:59:07 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> 1) I don't see any mention of hald & dbus in the upgrade guide. I
> currently have them turned on. Are they still necessary? I know hald
> is going away one of these days. Is it too early for me to dump it.
> Possibly dump hald before the up
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 14:24:18 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I have a new machine that just came up yesterday. I was thinking of
> running ~arch on it and seeing how things work out. Seems like it's a
> good time to do it if I'm ever going to as I haven't started using it
> and it's going to get busy.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:36:37 +0200, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> The reason for doing so is that what is considered as unstable as been
>>> regarded as stable releases for the developers, and t
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:36:37 +0200, Damian wrote:
>
>> The reason for doing so is that what is considered as unstable as been
>> regarded as stable releases for the developers, and the truth is that
>> the problems I got for using outdated s
Damian writes:
> Thus, I'm thinking about switching all of my system to the unstable
> branch. But first I want to be sure that this is reasonable given the
> problems I described before.
>
> Can you provide me some useful advice according to your experience?
I have asked a similar question here
On Sunday 11 April 2010 20:36:37 Damian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been using the gentoo stable branch since I began with this distro
> (around 4 years ago), but lately I've been unmasking almost all packages
> I use in my daily work (emacs, firefox, gnome*, xmonad, etc).
>
> The reason for doing s
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:36:37 +0200, Damian wrote:
> The reason for doing so is that what is considered as unstable as been
> regarded as stable releases for the developers, and the truth is that
> the problems I got for using outdated software were more that the ones I
> had for using unstable ver
26 matches
Mail list logo
