On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:59:26 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > So, don't update Bash unless you are also updating the the correct
> > baselayout. I'm about to update my desktop, so if I'm not around for a
> > while, you'll know why...
>
> Well, as before, I'll be a chicken and wait for you to ret
I have upgraded it today and haven't any problems (rebooting, syncing,
emereging, and so on...).
=== On Wednesday 04 January 2006 19:28, Alexander Skwar wrote: ===
Alexander Skwar schrieb:
> bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
> to bash v3.1?
New release, sam
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> On Wed, 04 Jan 2006 17:28:17 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
>> New release, same question:
>>
>> bash-3.1-r2 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
>> to bash v3.1?
>
> Tried it this morning, no networking! According to Bugzilla, it needs
> baselayout-1.12
Alexander Skwar schrieb:
> bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
> to bash v3.1?
New release, same question:
bash-3.1-r2 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
to bash v3.1?
Alexander Skwar
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
I understand that anyone with "~x86" in make.conf would get an upgrade like
that. I used to run one box bleeding edge but had a portage/perl issue about
a year and a half ago that took a couple days to fix. That cured my need for
the latest and greatest of everything. Now, I run a few "~x86" app
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 16:32:43 -0500, Ernie Schroder wrote:
> Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there
> some feature that I "have to have"?
No, but I run pure ~arch systems. When I updated world on my iBook, a
bash update was included, so I let it run. I then rebooted
Ernie Schroder schrieb:
> Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some
> feature that I "have to have"?
The point is, that it is in the unstable Gentoo tree. And
people that have ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in make.conf will
install this.
Alexander Skwar
--
gentoo-user@g
On 12/22/05, Ernie Schroder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some
> feature that I "have to have"?
It wasnt on purpose I assure you, I only notice after the emerge world
was complete.
--
Ryan Viljoen Bsc(Eng) (Electrical)
"When yo
Just for fun, why would one want to emerge an unstable bash? Is there some
feature that I "have to have"?
On Thursday 22 December 2005 16:18, a tiny voice compelled Ryan Viljoen to
write:
> > > bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
> > > to bash v3.1?
> >
> > It seems
> > bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
> > to bash v3.1?
>
> It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident.
I just did a emerge sync and then emerge world. Bash v3.1 was emerged
a reboot later and my scripts were broken. Bleh! Back to Bash v3.0
--
Rya
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:26:52 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident.
>
> Ah, great to hear - I was too much of a chicken to try it myself :)
I have buildpkg in FEATURES, so even if an upgrade prevents booting, I
only have to boot from a li
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:34 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
>> bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
>> to bash v3.1?
>
> It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident.
Ah, great to hear - I was too much of a chicken to try it
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:53:34 +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> bash-3.1-r1 isn't hard masked anymore. Is it now safe to upgrade
> to bash v3.1?
It seems so, I've just upgraded and rebooted without incident.
--
Neil Bothwick
Puns are bad, but poetry is verse...
signature.asc
Description: PGP s
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:18:29 +0200, Catalin Trifu wrote:
>
>
>>I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It
>> breaks the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are
>> left without network.
>
> emerge --sync again. Bash 3.1 has been
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:18:29 +0200, Catalin Trifu wrote:
>I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It
> breaks the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are
> left without network.
emerge --sync again. Bash 3.1 has been package-masked.
--
Neil Bothwick
Hi,
I just had a terrible experience with upgrading to bash-3.1. It breaks
the rc-scripts (especially rc-daemon.sh and eth.lo) so you are left
without network.
/lib/rcscripts/sh/rc-daemon.sh: line 328: syntax error near unexpected
token `('
/lib/rcscripts/sh/rc-daemon.sh: line
16 matches
Mail list logo
