| 1 |
On 7/7/06, Molle Bestefich <molle.bestefich@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Are you using an portage overlay? If so, what is in it? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> No. No idea what that is. Sounds interesting, though. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It is a local portage tree with ebuilds that you have either written |
| 7 |
yourself or downloaded from others. Since the overlay will override |
| 8 |
what is in portage, you can easily get yourself into trouble this way. |
| 9 |
So it is not really recommended unless you *really* know what you are |
| 10 |
doing! |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> [nomerge ] dev-util/mono-tools-1.1.11 |
| 13 |
> [ebuild N ] dev-dotnet/gecko-sharp-0.6 |
| 14 |
> [nomerge ] www-client/mozilla-1.7.13 |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
*Sigh*. What a mess. Unfortunately the Gentoo dev's have taken the |
| 17 |
rather unusual step of _breaking the tree_ due to a security problem. |
| 18 |
And from what I understand [1], mozilla is going to be package masked |
| 19 |
today (if it hasn't already), so the block messages should go away, |
| 20 |
but you'll get even worse "no package to satisify" messages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
At this point your choices are fairly limited, and neither one is very good. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
1. Unmerge both mono-tools and gecko-sharp. Mono-tools requires |
| 25 |
gecko-sharp, and that requires mozilla. You can use "equery files |
| 26 |
mono-tools" to see what you will lose by going this route. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
2. Manually unmask mozilla (and probably mono-tools and gecko-sharp) |
| 29 |
to keep them around. This might work, but I think you're going to be |
| 30 |
jumping through a lot of hoops to try and avoid seamonkey. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-Richard |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=137665 |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives