Re: [gentoo-user] Re: About procmail and getline

2009-06-15 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Monday 15 June 2009 18:50:58 Stroller wrote: > On 15 Jun 2009, at 08:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > ... > > Much more work than it's worth. It's easier to reinstall. > > ... > > There was a recent thread on this, and the OP eventually decided to > > write a > > script that listed every package he

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: About procmail and getline

2009-06-15 Thread Stroller
On 15 Jun 2009, at 08:34, Alan McKinnon wrote: ... Much more work than it's worth. It's easier to reinstall. ... There was a recent thread on this, and the OP eventually decided to write a script that listed every package he had and copy this to package.mask (with ">" in front of course), th

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: About procmail and getline

2009-06-15 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Sunday 14 June 2009 19:38:42 Harry Putnam wrote: > Sebastian Günther writes: > > * Harry Putnam (rea...@newsguy.com) [12.06.09 16:41]: > >> There is a patch offered but still one would think using standard > >> emerge on a package that is outside the `~' daredevil stage and is not > >> masked,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: About procmail and getline

2009-06-14 Thread Sebastian Günther
* Harry Putnam (rea...@newsguy.com) [14.06.09 19:46]: > Sebastian Günther writes: > > > * Harry Putnam (rea...@newsguy.com) [12.06.09 16:41]: > >> > >> There is a patch offered but still one would think using standard > >> emerge on a package that is outside the `~' daredevil stage and is not >