1 |
Yeah, but it should show the version that it's actually upgrading, not the |
2 |
version that's in a different SLOT. Maybe I'll take a look at the Portage |
3 |
code, and come up with a patch later. |
4 |
|
5 |
Jon Portnoy said: |
6 |
> Recent versions of Portage will show UD for packages that're actually |
7 |
> going to be downgraded and just U when they're in different SLOTs, I |
8 |
> think. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:56:52AM -0700, Matthew Walker wrote: |
11 |
>> Then I'd like to propose a new feature for portage. ;) |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> There is no visual indication in the output of emerge -pu world that |
14 |
>> tells me those are in different slots. And since I apparently still have |
15 |
>> a 1.4 panel version installed, shouldn't it show /that/ as the package |
16 |
>> it's upgrading? |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> Jon Portnoy said: |
19 |
>> > It's safe. They're in different SLOTs. |
20 |
>> > |
21 |
>> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 09:50:13AM -0700, Matthew Walker wrote: |
22 |
>> >> Is there some reason gnome-panel wants to downgrade from version |
23 |
>> 2.2.1 to version 1.4.2-r2? Is it safe to let it downgrade? |
24 |
>> >> |
25 |
>> >> I've been avoiding letting portage 'update' gnome-panel for a while |
26 |
>> now, but I'm getting tired of it, and want to know what I should do. |
27 |
>> >> |
28 |
>> >> Matthew |
29 |
>> >> |
30 |
>> >> |
31 |
>> >> |
32 |
>> >> -- |
33 |
>> >> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
34 |
>> > |
35 |
>> > -- |
36 |
>> > Jon Portnoy |
37 |
>> > |
38 |
>> > -- |
39 |
>> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
40 |
>> |
41 |
>> |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> -- |
45 |
>> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
46 |
> |
47 |
> -- |
48 |
> Jon Portnoy |
49 |
> |
50 |
> -- |
51 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
52 |
|
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
-- |
57 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |