On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:41:49 Alan McKinnon wrote: > With all these changes it's hard to give firm advice, except to say this: > > If conf-update wants to make changes to package categories, and eix on your > machine gives the same new ones as the new config file, then make the > change. Otherwise find out why you are out of step.
Yep, eix is telling me that suggested changes are sane and therefore I should accept them. > having said that, yes it does look like you have enlightenment overlay > uninstalled and the efl one installed. And it looks like you are now going > to switch them back around again. Life on the bleeding edge is fun, right? Fun but uncomfortable! ===================================== Calculating dependencies... done! !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "dev-libs/e_dbus" have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - dev-libs/e_dbus-1.0.0_beta2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) ===================================== So it seems that I should delete efl, install enlightenment overlay instead, remove any package.keywords on all 9999 ** packages (?) that I had set up for efl and instead unmask beta versions of packages as portage is telling me to do. Have I got this right, or should I leave 9999 ** in my package keywords for the enlightenment packages? I may wait until Sunday or so in the hope that all this dust has settled, because I fear that I may be caught half-way between changes on efl and enlightenment overlays with no way of installing a working desktop. Thanks again for holding my hand on this. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
