Yes it was the downgrading that I complained for.
Several days ago it would have updated to 0.8.9 and now to 
0.8.5 that's just not logical.
And I think this shouldn't belong to users forum IMHO because
users can do nothing about such situations while developers and ebuild
commiters can.'Do not upgrade than' sounds a la MS's 'don't do that
even if it would be the logical thing to do.Stupeed user '

:)


> On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 16:46, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > and to what should it upgrade if the only ebuild that is newer is
> > marked as unstable while the ones which were stable were deleted?
> > 
> Then ofcourse it wouln't upgrade (that's the idea). That's why I asked
> you if it was because of the downgrading you complained.
> 
> p.s. this issue belongs in gentoo-user or in the apropriate forum
> IMHO.
> 
> p.p.s. I've posted this to the gentoo-dev list too - so everyone can
> follow the thread - and other people with same problem might find the
> answer to the same question by searching.
> 
> > > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 11:06, Jani Monoses wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > I have s 0.8.8 installed and an update would go back to 0.8.5-r1
> > > > because 0.8.11 is masked and other ebuilds have been deleted so
> > > > the greatest stable is 0.8.5
> > > > while this is probably an accident it would be good if portage
> > > > would not allow such inconsistencies to happen.
> > > > 
> > > you mean not downgrading? then just use -Uu instead of just -u -
> > > then it won't try to downgrade.
> > > -- 
> > > Regards,
> > > Klavs Klavsen, GSEC - kl@... - http://www.vsen.dk
> > > 
> > > Working with Unix is like wrestling a worthy opponent. 
> > > Working with windows is like attacking a small whining child 
> > > who is carrying a .38.				
> > > 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Klavs Klavsen, GSEC - kl@... - http://www.vsen.dk
> 
> Working with Unix is like wrestling a worthy opponent. 
> Working with windows is like attacking a small whining child 
> who is carrying a .38.				
> 

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list