| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 9:03 AM Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Sunday, 17 April 2022 12:13:06 -00 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> --->8 |
| 6 |
> > It looks like this is cause my using mixed keywords, amd64 for udev and |
| 7 |
> > ~amd64 for systemd-boot/utils. Does keywording udev-250 resolve the |
| 8 |
> > blocks? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yes, after keywording several others, thus: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ~sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles-249.9 |
| 13 |
> ~sys-apps/systemd-utils-250.4 |
| 14 |
> ~sys-fs/udev-250 |
| 15 |
> ~virtual/tmpfiles-0-r2 |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> But then, after rebooting because of the udev update, systemd-boot-250-r1 has |
| 18 |
> come in. I can't revert those keywords though, because then I'd have to ditch |
| 19 |
> elogind in favour of systemd. I really do not want to do that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Can't you just fix your USE flags with systemd-utils? Why revert? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
If I need to bump a package up to ~arch temporarily usually I just do |
| 24 |
it with an atom like "<sys-apps/systemd-utils-251" or something like |
| 25 |
that, so that I keep getting ~arch updates within the major version, |
| 26 |
but the next major bump happens when it hits stable. Obviously you |
| 27 |
need to understand the versioning/stabilization policies for the |
| 28 |
packages involved if you do that, and it is situational, but you |
| 29 |
really shouldn't be mixing keywords anyway unless you're comfortable |
| 30 |
with that. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives