* Rich Freeman schrieb:
> Something I've done when I've really borked up my system is to just
> save /etc, backup, etc, and then extract a stage3 over my root
> filesystem. That gets all of my system packages into a working state.
> Sure, some packages may not work, but many still will. Then a
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Dale wrote:
> As a regular reader of gentoo-user, if someone has not updated in more than
> a year, we almost always recommend a re-install. Maybe save /etc, /home and
> the world file and then start from scratch on the rest. As a user since the
> 1.4 days, I woul
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2011-01-02 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-dotnet/ant-dotnet 2010-12-28 18:28:56 pacho
net-dns/shelldap2010-12-29 09:12:51 pva
app-dicts/goldendict2010-1
Petteri Räty wrote:
On 01/02/2011 11:04 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
Whatever you folks eventually settle on, please send patches and
suggestions to the GDP for our upgrade guide. I'd prefer that users
have a possible upgrade path from *any* profile/version of Gentoo up
through the present. If
On 01/02/2011 11:04 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>
> Whatever you folks eventually settle on, please send patches and
> suggestions to the GDP for our upgrade guide. I'd prefer that users
> have a possible upgrade path from *any* profile/version of Gentoo up
> through the present. If you decide not t
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 19:24:14 +
Roy Bamford wrote:
> Some other interesting things along the way:-
> You need to incrementally update gcc and glibc as there is some
> mutual blockage there too.
> libpng-1.2, xorg and libexpat too if the box is old enough. How far
> do you want to go back?
>
On 2011.01.02 16:02, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 01/02/2011 05:19 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > One way we could drop EAPI 0 would be if we do a major review of
> tree
> > and repo formats to improve upgrade paths, which would however
> likely
> > require breaking backwards co
On 01/02/2011 05:19 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
>
>
> One way we could drop EAPI 0 would be if we do a major review of tree
> and repo formats to improve upgrade paths, which would however likely
> require breaking backwards compatibility at such point.
> I believe such a change would
Le 31/12/2010 17:04, Brian Harring a écrit :
> Quick scan of the tree via `pinspect eapi_usage`, the percentile is
> eapi: '0' 13934 pkgs found, 50.43% of the repository
> eapi: '2' 8679 pkgs found, 31.41% of the repository
> eapi: '3' 4432 pkgs found, 16.04% of the repository
> eapi: '1' 5
We have to be precise about what we are talking here:
1) for NEW ebuilds added to the tree...
>
> So maybe it's about time that we deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1 for new
> ebuilds. As a first step, a warning could be added to repoman that
> would be triggered whenever a new ebuild with an EAPI less than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 31-12-2010 10:02, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after approval of EAPI 4, there are now 5 different EAPIs available,
> and it's hard to remember what features are offered by which EAPI.
>
> So maybe it's about time that we deprecate EAPIs 0 and
* Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> although portage has long been generating the NEEDED files in vdb. even
> stable portage generates these files.
Ah, okay, I wasn't aware of that.
What's the difference between NEEEDED and NEEDED.2 ? Multiarch ?
cu
--
-
On Sunday, January 02, 2011 02:31:06 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 00:08:34 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 01, 2011 23:09:11 Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > > BTW: several blog/maillist postings talked about the problem that
> > > even on recompile, older library versions co
13 matches
Mail list logo
