Apparently, though unproven, at 20:35 on Thursday 04 November 2010, Peter
Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 17:01:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It's not package.keywords, it's package.accept_keywords. The old name
> > will be accepted for a while but I don't know when that w
On Thursday 04 November 2010 17:01:45 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> It's not package.keywords, it's package.accept_keywords. The old name
> will be accepted for a while but I don't know when that warranty
> expires. Do this:
>
>
> in package.{accept_,}keywords
accept_keywords did it. Thanks. I didn't
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 19:01:45 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> It's not package.keywords, it's package.accept_keywords. The old name
> will be accepted for a while but I don't know when that warranty expires
I hadn't noticed that, but the portage man page still advocates the use
of either, and portage
Am 04.11.2010 18:01, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
It's not package.keywords, it's package.accept_keywords.
Good to know, when and where was that announced?
Greetings
Sebastian Beßler
Am 04.11.2010 17:46, schrieb Peter Humphrey:
As expected, that didn't help - this is a ~amd64 gentoo box, and so
everything is already emerged with the ~amd64 keyword. I still get a
missing-keyword error from emerge.
portage-2.2_rc67.ebuild has KEYWORDS="~sparc-fbsd ~x86-fbsd"
As you can see
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:46 on Thursday 04 November 2010, Peter
Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Thursday 04 November 2010 09:30:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > They just changed from package masking to keyword masking, as noted
> > in the ChangeLog
>
> I couldn't get emerge to show me the
On Thursday 04 November 2010 09:30:11 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> They just changed from package masking to keyword masking, as noted
> in the ChangeLog
I couldn't get emerge to show me the change log.
> Remove the entry from /etc/portage/package.unmask and add it
> to /etc/portage/package.keywords.
On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 00:32:01 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On this ~amd64 box portage 2.2x was hard-masked a day or two ago and I
> was required to downgrade to sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24. It seems that
> the 2.2 branch is now only fit for 32-bit systems - there must really
> be some hard problem
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Wednesday 03 November 2010 23:10:05 Dale wrote:
I synced this morning and I still got it.
[IP-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc67
On this ~amd64 box portage 2.2x was hard-masked a day or two ago and I
was required to downgrade to sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24. It s
On Wednesday 03 November 2010 23:10:05 Dale wrote:
> I synced this morning and I still got it.
>
> [IP-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc67
On this ~amd64 box portage 2.2x was hard-masked a day or two ago and I
was required to downgrade to sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24. It seems that
the 2.2 branch is
Francesco Talamona wrote:
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc67
HTH
Francesco
I'll look forward to that going stable x86. Right now that means
sys-apps/portage-2.1.8.3
Actually 2.2_rc67 was removed recently.
ciao
Fr
On Wednesday 03 November 2010, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> > sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc67
> >
> > HTH
> >
> >Francesco
>
> I'll look forward to that going stable x86. Right now that means
> sys-apps/portage-2.1.8.3
Actually 2.2_rc67 was removed recently.
ciao
Francesco
--
Linux Vers
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Francesco Talamona <
francesco.talam...@know.eu> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Gary Golden wrote:
> > Hi, list.
> > I keep changes of my /etc with git and I would like to include
> > /var/lib/portage/world file into the repository.
> >
> > Can I safely do:
>
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:21 on Wednesday 03 November 2010, Francesco
Talamona did opine thusly:
On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Gary Golden wrote:
Hi, list.
I keep changes of my /etc with git and I would like to include
/var/lib/portage/world file into the
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:49 on Wednesday 03 November 2010, walt did
opine thusly:
> On 11/02/2010 03:05 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Right now I sit with 60+ SLES 9 machines that cannot be taken offline for
> > any reason, and EVERY SINGLE ONE has one giant filesystem...
> >
> > How di
Apparently, though unproven, at 00:21 on Wednesday 03 November 2010, Francesco
Talamona did opine thusly:
> On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Gary Golden wrote:
> > Hi, list.
> > I keep changes of my /etc with git and I would like to include
> > /var/lib/portage/world file into the repository.
> >
>
On 11/02/2010 03:05 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Right now I sit with 60+ SLES 9 machines that cannot be taken offline for any
> reason, and EVERY SINGLE ONE has one giant filesystem...
> How did this happen? The man in charge three managers ago thought this was a
> cool way to configure critical
On Tuesday 02 November 2010, Gary Golden wrote:
> Hi, list.
> I keep changes of my /etc with git and I would like to include
> /var/lib/portage/world file into the repository.
>
> Can I safely do:
>
> mv /var/lib/portage/world /etc/portage
> ln -s /etc/portage /var/lib/portage/world
>
> Will por
18 matches
Mail list logo
