On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:25:52 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> This is all doable until now but I have about six different tools which
> do their job more or less reliable to achieve all this.
Having separate tools has the advantage that it is possible to improve
or replace individual ones, such
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:07 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> > flagedit will warn if you have obsolete flags in /etc/portage
> > or /etc/make.conf.
> I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take
> care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already
>
Vaeth schrieb:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
Redundant is where the package is still available but the /etc/portage.*
entry is no longer needed. e.g. you have "dev-lib/foobar-1.1 ~x86" in
package.keyworkd but it is now stable.
Sounds reasonabl
Dale wrote:
> Vaeth wrote:
> > > Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what?
> > >
> > > Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
>
> Also, emerge -uvDNp comes out clean. Nothing to upgrade or downgrade.
> Revdep-rebuild comes out clean as well.
The install
Dale schrieb:
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
Thanks!
I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take
care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already
one i miss?
Regards,
Daniel
I wouldn't mind having one that cleans out /etc as a whole. I'm sure
t
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> >
> > Redundant is where the package is still available but the /etc/portage.*
> > entry is no longer needed. e.g. you have "dev-lib/foobar-1.1 ~x86" in
> > package.keyworkd but it is now stable.
>
> Sounds reaso
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
Thanks!
I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take
care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already
one i miss?
Regards,
Daniel
I wouldn't mind having one that cleans out /etc as a whole. I'm sure
there are some o
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
But what is the difference between a "redundant entry" and an
"uninstalled entry". As far as I see the matching criteria of both
checks is a package which is not installed or in the database but in a
package.*
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> But what is the difference between a "redundant entry" and an
> "uninstalled entry". As far as I see the matching criteria of both
> checks is a package which is not installed or in the database but in a
> package.* file.
Redundant
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
Btw: eix-test-obsolete can not check for obsolete use-flags at the
moment?
Regards,
Daniel
If it did check USE flags, I'd have a lng list there too. This is a
5 year old install. I try to keep it tidy but it does creep up on me.
Dale
:-) :-)
--
gent
> emerge -uNDvp world comes out clean.
Hmm. I just commented an entry in package keywords and after that it
showed up the same way as reported it. If i run portage it wants to
downgrade that particular package.
I can not find
gentoo-sources-2.6.23-r3 in any file in /etc/portage/package.* so
Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
As it says this apps are either not in the database or masked.
kde-base/kdeaddons-docs-konq-plugins-3.5.9 masked
kde-base/kdeaddons-kfile-plugins-3.5.9 masked
kde-base/kdeaddons-meta-3.5.9 masked
sys-k
Vaeth wrote:
Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what?
Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
The "database" is what is produced by update-eix, i.e. usually
the portage tree and your overlays (and perhaps "virtual" overlays).
So, as a rule, it mea
> Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
As it says this apps are either not in the database or masked.
kde-base/kdeaddons-docs-konq-plugins-3.5.9 masked
kde-base/kdeaddons-kfile-plugins-3.5.9 masked
kde-base/kdeaddons-meta-3.5.9 masked
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.6.
> Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what?
>
> Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked):
The "database" is what is produced by update-eix, i.e. usually
the portage tree and your overlays (and perhaps "virtual" overlays).
So, as a rule, it means that you hav
Hi,
I ran eix-test-obsolete and cleaned up a lot of the things in the
output. This one part, stumps me. Just what exactly is it trying to
tell me? Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what?
Output below. Thanks
Dale
:-) :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / # eix-test-obsolete
< S
16 matches
Mail list logo
