| 1 |
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:24:17 +0000 |
| 2 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:16:01 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Historically, when an update to portage came available, portage |
| 7 |
> > would put it at the head of the list, build it first, then re-run |
| 8 |
> > emerge world command. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I've seen lately that this no longer happens, portage updates are |
| 11 |
> > any old place in the list just like all other packages. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I'm wondering why this change happened, or if I somehow unknowingly |
| 14 |
> > set an option to disable the old behaviour )I'd liek it back). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It's not just you, although it doesn't appear to be that random. |
| 17 |
> Generally the portage update comes at or near the end of the list |
| 18 |
> here. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> At least you get the rest of the world update done before a broken new |
| 21 |
> portage renders it unusable :-/ |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
:-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I prefer to update portage first, just in case it co-coincides with some |
| 26 |
update to the tree <pedantic old fart mode ON> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm not worried about broken portage commits, I have |
| 29 |
FEATURES="buildsyspkg" enabled so as long as I have a working tar I'm |
| 30 |
good to go with any fix. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives