| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
El Sábado, 13 de Septiembre de 2003 02:08, Thomas de Grenier de Latour |
| 5 |
escribió: |
| 6 |
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:26:10 +0200 |
| 7 |
> "Alberto G. Hierro" <fiam@××××××××××.org>(by way of Alberto G. Hierro |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> <fiam@××××××××××.org>) wrote: |
| 10 |
> > Why is pfeifer-sources going to be downgraded (i used -U) and why |
| 11 |
> > emerge shows it as an upgrade? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> It's not a downgrade, it's an upgrade in 2.4.20 slot. Your 2.4.21 |
| 14 |
> version won't be affected. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As we can see in /var/db/pkg/sys-kernel/ : |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
fiam@ixnay fiam $ ls /var/db/pkg/sys-kernel/ |
| 19 |
genkernel-1.8 linux-headers-2.4.19-r1 |
| 20 |
gentoo-sources-2.4.20-r7 pfeifer-sources-2.4.21.1_pre4 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I haven't any pfeifer-sources slotted 2.4.20, so what's upgrading portage? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I know 2.4.21 won't be affected, but I don't want two versions installed on my |
| 25 |
system if I only use one of them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > Is this a bug or is the expected behaviour? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> I would say "minor bug" since it's only about output, or a somehow |
| 31 |
> "expected behavior" since it's now well known :) |
| 32 |
> See bug #18608 for a possible fix to the cosmetic part of this issue, |
| 33 |
> and bug #4698 for a more in depth discussion. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- -- |
| 36 |
/* Alberto G. Hierro (Skyhusker) */ |
| 37 |
/* Linux User #298867 */ |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 42 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
iD8DBQE/Ym4X4O6JklHkL2cRAvjfAJ9T6BbJ0Q6a2zfh8otBc2O7Y5WYhwCfZ6rc |
| 45 |
NeWBcNMkVvXY4iwtfa63yMw= |
| 46 |
=BR6Q |
| 47 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives