| 1 |
On 25/07/2003 at 21:26:31(-0600), Dave Nellans used 1.4K just to say: |
| 2 |
> I agree with brad, I proposed the emerge inject solution was how this |
| 3 |
> problem was intended to be dealt with but couldn't quite make sense of |
| 4 |
> the reason this didn't work from the thread. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> could someone possibly clearly give the arguement against injecting |
| 7 |
> again for us slow people? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The problems as I get them, are: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- Injecting the sources, would work, but it would require reinjecting every |
| 12 |
newer version, or else an "emerge -u" would upgrade the version for us, when |
| 13 |
for example upgrading a package that depends on the sources. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
- Injecting a sufficiently big, non-existing version would not work, because an |
| 16 |
emerge -u (even -U) would downgrade the version to the highest available, |
| 17 |
i.e. it would install a version. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It seems that having a dummy-sources whose version does not change would solve |
| 20 |
this problem. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
\ Georgi Georgiev \ IBM's original motto: Cogito ergo vendo; \ |
| 24 |
/ chutz@×××.net / vendo ergo sum. / |
| 25 |
\ +81(90)6266-1163 \ \ |
Archives