| 1 |
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:48:35 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I've downloaded todays snapshot of protage and extracted |
| 4 |
> gimp-perl. Placed it in my portage tree. Then unmasked it with |
| 5 |
> package.keyword file and ran `emerge -v -p gimp-perl and then without |
| 6 |
> -p. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The build pulled in 20 other perl packages and is running currently. |
| 9 |
> Should I expect trouble from doing it this way? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Yes, if the dependencies are not in your outdated portage tree, although |
| 12 |
it appears you got away with it this time. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Why don't you want an up to date portage tree? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make |
| 21 |
it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way |
| 22 |
is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. |
| 23 |
The first method is far more difficult" -C.A.R. Hoare |
Archives