On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part.
> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was on
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
> The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message
> -- the present warning is misleading, as e
050906 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
>> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
>>> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
>>> may break your system. How's about not warning
>>> if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-v
On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> > may break your system. How's about not warning
> > if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> > satisfying the profile
050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> virtual/editor is a terrible case. :/
> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> may break your system. How's about not warning
> if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> satisfying the profile atom that is being trigg
On Monday 05 September 2005 19:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives
On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> > is this an oversight or is there a reas
On Monday 05 September 2005 04:07, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Philip Webb wrote:
> >> I actually have
> >> /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
> >> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
> >> "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s
050904 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> I actually have
>> /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
>> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
>> "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
>>!!! This could be damag
On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:36 pm, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > Philip Webb schrieb:
> >> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
> >
> > You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
>
> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
>
>
On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
> It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
> I would have assumed that Udev would now be the
Philip Webb wrote:
050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
Philip Webb schrieb:
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
The 2.4 subdir is the place I found Devfs mentioned,
but I don't seem to be using that subdir.
I actually
050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Philip Webb schrieb:
>> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
> You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
The 2.4 subdir is the place I found Devfs mentioned,
but I don't seem to be using that subdir.
I actually have
/etc/make.profi
Philip Webb schrieb:
> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
--
Sebastian Bergmann http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69
signature.asc
Philip Webb wrote:
Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.
/usr/portage/
Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linu
16 matches
Mail list logo
