On Friday 03 December 2004 22:14, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 21:25 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:12:40 -0500 Chris Gianelloni
> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > | On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 19:31 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > | > AFAICS there's no way to tell whether a profile is "inherit only" or
> > | > whether it's complete enough to be used by an end user. Would it
> > | > make sense to have an empty text file called "inherit-only" (for
> > | > example) within profiles which aren't usable?
> > |
> > | I was always under the impression that all profiles should be usable.
> > | If that is not the case, then I 100% agree that there should be some
> > | way of marking a profile as unusable.
> > Well, you couldn't really sanely run a system with your profile symlink
> > pointing to 'base' or 'default-linux'.
> ...and like every time you assume something, somebody has to come out
> and point out the fact that you're an ass.
> Yeah, I hadn't considered default-linux or base. Though, to be honest,
> I bet you would have a working system with either of them, or at leats
> you should, even if it did keep from having arch or release-specific
> changes. After all, most of it would be the changes in virtuals, which
> so long as you emerged the right programs to satisfy the virtuals for
> your arch, you should be fine with either of these. However, you are
> definitely correct that you can no select one of these profiles, do an
> "emerge system" and expect it to work without some intervention.
# ln -sf /usr/portage/profiles/base /etc/make.profile
# emerge -p system
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
!!! ARCH is not set... Are you missing the /etc/make.profile symlink?
!!! Is the symlink correct? Is your portage tree complete?
email@example.com mailing list