On Wednesday 14 July 2010 05:49:48 Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for
> >>> kicks and
On Wednesday 14 July 2010 06:39:51 Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for
> >>> kicks and
Dale wrote:
> Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Dale wrote:
Valmor de Almeida wrote:
So emerge -evp is useful to get those last inconsistencies out of the
system.
--
Valmor
You can add this option to help with those: --with-bdeps y I consider it
-D on steroids
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Dale wrote:
> Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>>
>> So emerge -evp is useful to get those last inconsistencies out of the
>> system.
>>
>> --
>> Valmor
>>
>>
>
> You can add this option to help with those: --with-bdeps y I consider it
> -D on steroids. I actually adde
Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks and
put it all back together again so that not eve
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks and
>>> put it all back together again so that not even the factory can notice...
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks and
>>> put it all back together again so that not even the factory can notice...
On Monday 12 July 2010 10:18:48 zek...@gmail.com wrote:
> In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 July 2010 02:57:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >> On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> >
> >> > I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upgraded. I have s
In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote:
> On Saturday 10 July 2010 02:57:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upgraded. I have set gcc to
>> > the newer version
>> >
>> > -> gcc-config -l
>> >
* Mark Knecht wrote:
> Oh, and besides liking the smell of fresh baked 1 and 0's in the
> morning emerge -e @world was an easy way to solve my libpng problem.
> Woke up this morning to a freshly baked Gentoo machine.
Now we just need support for emerging fresh and hot coffee ;-)
BTW: regularil
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>
>> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks and
>> put it all back together again so that not even the factory can notice...
>
> Precisely... :-)
>
Oh
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Unless he's the kind of guy who likes to rip his Ferrari apart for kicks and
> put it all back together again so that not even the factory can notice...
Precisely... :-)
On Saturday 10 July 2010 02:57:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upgraded. I have set gcc to
> > the newer version
> >
> > -> gcc-config -l
> >
> > [1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.3.4
> > [2]
On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:02:23 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> assuming this all goes without trouble (will take a while), should I
> >> unmerge version 4.3.4?
> >
> > There's no reason to. Unless you don't need it anymore.
> >
>
> Or he doesn't like cruft or needs the drive space.
>
> Is rebuilding
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>
On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upg
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Dale wrote:
Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
Hello,
I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upgraded. I have set gcc to
the newer version
->gcc-config -l
[1] i686-pc-linux
Dale wrote:
[snip]
>
> Is rebuilding the whole system needed for that upgrade tho?
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>
Thought it would be a good idea to have a consistent system; not sure
whether it is necessary.
Thanks for the replies.
--
Valmor
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>> On 07/10/2010 04:16 AM, Valmor de Almeida wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just updated the portage tree and gcc was upgraded. I have set gcc to
>>> the newer version
>>>
>>> -> gcc-config -l
>>> [1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.
Ryan Tandy wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>> Cheese, I'm learning something. I already knew that it would not delete
>> files in /etc/ and now I know why. LOL I never put the two together
>> before you said that.
>
> Well, the /etc thing is generally more due to CONFIG_PROTECT - it
> won't delete files fr
Dale wrote:
Cheese, I'm learning something. I already knew that it would not delete
files in /etc/ and now I know why. LOL I never put the two together
before you said that.
Well, the /etc thing is generally more due to CONFIG_PROTECT - it won't
delete files from /etc regardless of whether
On Monday 11 September 2006 23:32, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > So basically if I mess with a file and then unmerge the program it
> > belongs to, I have to remember which ones I messed with and delete them
> > myself?
>
> Yes, because the file is no lo
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>
>> So basically if I mess with a file and then unmerge the program it
>> belongs to, I have to remember which ones I messed with and delete them
>> myself?
>>
>
> Yes, because the file is no longer the file portage i
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 23:15:09 -0500, Dale wrote:
> So basically if I mess with a file and then unmerge the program it
> belongs to, I have to remember which ones I messed with and delete them
> myself?
Yes, because the file is no longer the file portage installed, so it has
no right to remove it.
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 09 September 2006 05:33, Dale wrote:
>
>> What would be a good way of finding files that were not deleted when
>> something was upgraded/unmerged? I thought depclean was different from
>> what I wanted to say but it got the ball rolling.
>>
>
> Depcl
On Saturday 09 September 2006 05:33, Dale wrote:
> What would be a good way of finding files that were not deleted when
> something was upgraded/unmerged? I thought depclean was different from
> what I wanted to say but it got the ball rolling.
Depclean is to remove packages that are no longer in
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> I'm working on the list above. So far nothing belongs to anything.
>> Maybe I need a depclean on this thing. It is a 3 year old install if I
>> recall correctly.
>>
>
> This has nothing to do with depclean. Neils suggesting that the md5sums were
> altered by fix
On 9/8/06, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So basically if these files don't belong to anything, I can safely
delete them?
Yep.
On the roach report, me sort of chicken to edit those files. Will it be
OK to let it stay like this and let the bug get fixed? It's been doing
this a while and I d
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:14:53 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > broken /usr/lib/libqavm.la (requires /usr/lib/libaviplayavformat.la)
> > broken /usr/lib/libqavm.la (requires /usr/lib/libaviplayavcodec.la)
> > broken /usr/lib/libqbanking.la (requires /usr/lib/libaqbanking.la)
> > broken /usr/lib/libqba
On 9/8/06, Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Checking dynamic linking consistency...
> broken /usr/lib/aqbanking/plugins/0/bankinfo/de.la (requires
> /usr/lib/libaqbanking.la)
Since you don't have aqbanking installed anymore, just delete these
files, and probably the entire /usr/lib/qabanking
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Friday 08 September 2006 15:00, Dale wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if it is just me or what but every time I
>> run revdep-rebuild it wants to emerge gcc again. It did the same thing
>> before the gcc upgrade.
>>
>
> It is bug #125728 [1]? Otherwise if it continue
Marc Blumentritt wrote:
> Dale schrieb:
>
>> Marc Blumentritt wrote:
>> I did that too. I'm not sure if it is just me or what but every time I
>> run revdep-rebuild it wants to emerge gcc again. It did the same thing
>> before the gcc upgrade. If you run it, you may want to post to make
>> su
On Friday 08 September 2006 15:00, Dale wrote:
> I'm not sure if it is just me or what but every time I
> run revdep-rebuild it wants to emerge gcc again. It did the same thing
> before the gcc upgrade.
It is bug #125728 [1]? Otherwise if it continues consider posting the output
of:
# revdep-re
Marc Blumentritt wrote:
>
> I would run revdep-rebuild after the rebuild of
> world, just to be sure.
>
< snip>
> Cheers
> Marc
>
>
>
I did that too. I'm not sure if it is just me or what but every time I
run revdep-rebuild it wants to emerge gcc again. It did the same thing
before the g
34 matches
Mail list logo
