| 1 |
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:03:39 -0400, |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On 4/22/20 11:58 AM, John Covici wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Yes, portage agrees with that statement, maybe I didn't give you the |
| 7 |
> > whole log, I thought it said that in there -- I did see that, I am |
| 8 |
> > sure. My question is how does this work normally, when you merge a |
| 9 |
> > package and update is this not always the case that there are files |
| 10 |
> > owned by the previous version on the system? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Yeah, but the package manager knows which files are owned by the version |
| 14 |
> being replaced and it doesn't complain about those. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That makes no sense to me -- portage itself says those files are owned |
| 17 |
by 14.7.1965(14) so if its telling me that why does it not just |
| 18 |
replace those files? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: |
| 22 |
How do |
| 23 |
you spend it? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
John Covici wb2una |
| 26 |
covici@××××××××××.com |
Archives