| 1 |
meino.cramer@×××.de wrote: |
| 2 |
>> Sorry, I'm not following what you're trying to say :P |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> jpeg-7 is masked, Without it any update process stops with this |
| 6 |
> failure. jpeg-7 needs itsself to update jpeg-7 (according the output |
| 7 |
> I posted). |
| 8 |
> If I install it, many packaged needs to rebuild, for which I |
| 9 |
> have not the time. |
| 10 |
> When I want to prevent that, I am urged to install another masked |
| 11 |
> package. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Why needs a "non masked" system a masked packed and build against |
| 14 |
> it (incorporate its masked character) OR needs a compatibility |
| 15 |
> package which also is masked to not to build (directly) against |
| 16 |
> the other masked package? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Or in more peotic words: |
| 19 |
> To live on, take this poison. If you dont want to get poisoned |
| 20 |
> take the other poison. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Sorry, english is not my native code page... |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
Actually, according to the output you posted, something depends on |
| 30 |
jpeg-7. The output you posted didn't actually indicate that jpeg-7 |
| 31 |
depends on itself. There should have been a list below that output of |
| 32 |
what actually does depend on ">=media-libs/jpeg-7," if that helps at all. |
| 33 |
Chris Reffett |
Archives