On Thursday 04 February 2010 17:54:06 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > How about a portage feature request?
> >
> > The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
> > file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @syste
Mike Edenfield wrote:
On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.
Ar
On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.
Aren't all deps of packag
On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about a portage feature request?
The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf file
which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @system.
Without the setting, python does not get included in @system.
Since
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
> > @system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
> > way, you risk breaking the system.
>
> Aren't all deps of packages in @system themselves alre
On Thursday 04 February 2010 15:37:17 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:05:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > How about a portage feature request?
> >
> > The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
> > file which means the system uses portage, therefore python
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:05:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> How about a portage feature request?
>
> The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
> file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in
> @system.
>
> Without the setting, python does not get inc
On Thursday 04 February 2010 12:14:52 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> The bad thing is, since python is not a "system" package, it
> >> doesn't even save the last compiled binary
> >> in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsys
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
The bad thing is, since python is not a "system" package, it
doesn't even save the last compiled binary
in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsyspkg in
make.conf. It does portage but not python.
That'
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
> The bad thing is, since python is not a "system" package, it
> doesn't even save the last compiled binary
> in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsyspkg in
> make.conf. It does portage but not python.
That's because python is no lo
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:46:17 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > A command line argument (--force?) would be fine, but you can't
> > complain it's annoying when you have just complained that portage
> > doesn't do this.
>
> I didn't make that complaint...
Sorry, that comment was aimed at Dale. I kn
On Thursday 04 February 2010 02:04:36 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
> > > trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
> > > @world.
> >
> > Could be useful if im
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
@world.
Could be useful if implemented with an off switch
Or leave it off b
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
> > trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
> > @world.
>
> Could be useful if implemented with an off switch
>
> Or leave it off by default, user
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
syst
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:31:31 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
> > needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
> > Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.
>
> Portage is A package manager, b
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
> >> Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
> >> system, that would be he
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:07:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
> > doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
> > remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is
> > not compulsory.
> It doesn't
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
what happens. Yes
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 20:53:39 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Whereas willy-nilly mixing stable and unstable is normally condemned as a
> bad idea (with good reason), it generally considered OK with portage for
> the above reason. Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't
> contaminate the
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
> In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
> Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
> system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
> what happens. Yes, you can still unm
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
> >
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
> > > > G'day,
> > > >
> > > > I've been running baselayout-2 for s
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote:
100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
with legions of other unstable $STUFF
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:34:42 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
As for the issue with openrc:
=sys-apps/openrc-0.6.0-r1 depends on =sys-apps/sysvinit-2.87-r3, and
both are in ~arch. Unmask both, emerge them, run etc-update and be fine.
Portage's blocker list has historic
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:40:17 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 2/2/2010 3:48 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean.
> >
> > You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call
> > masked is actually called unstable
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote:
> 100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
> > Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
> > with legions of other unstable $STUFF
>
> So why has it con
On 2/2/2010 3:48 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean.
You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call
masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely.
Do not confuse these terms. They ha
100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
> Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
> with legions of other unstable $STUFF
So why has it continued to be marked 'unstable' for so long ?
My long-standing polic
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:34:42 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
> >> I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
> >> currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
> >
> > Never
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
>
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
> > > G'day,
> > >
> > > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been
> > > working fine AFAICT. Ov
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:03:10PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
> Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I likely
> to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and how deep?
The latest version of sysvinit, 2.87-r3, is the one you should be
running with openrc.
Th
Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
>
>> I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
>> currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
>
> Nevertheless, it isn't the latest version. To get that you need an ent
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
> I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
> currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
Nevertheless, it isn't the latest version. To get that you need an entry in
package.unmask; then port
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
> > G'day,
> >
> > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been
> > working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb
> > drive is no longer automo
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
> G'day,
>
> I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been working
> fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb drive is no
> longer automounting.
>
> This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which repo
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been working
fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb drive is no
longer automounting.
This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which reported:
* status: stopped".
Running "/etc/init.d/udev start" repor
36 matches
Mail list logo
