List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 16:46, Jani Monoses wrote:
> 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.
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.
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)