| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 2:41 PM n952162 <n952162@×××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 8/6/21 8:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 8:37 AM n952162 <n952162@×××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> I was complaining, mostly, that isodate had to be the thing that was |
| 6 |
> >> incompatible with my configuration. Maybe there is a unavoidable reason |
| 7 |
> >> that that package had to move to the newest EAPI, or maybe it was just a |
| 8 |
> >> sense that it's cool to be with the cutting edge. It seems to me that |
| 9 |
> >> isodate (which is actually tied, perhaps indirectly, to clearly slow |
| 10 |
> >> United Nations rule-making) must be pretty stable. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> > ... |
| 13 |
> > It might not hurt if that error message included the suggestion to run |
| 14 |
> > "emerge -u portage" to update it. It does say that the solution is to |
| 15 |
> > update portage - it just doesn't explicitly tell you how to do so. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> The way out of my dilema would be first to emerge portage and then |
| 19 |
> emerge @world? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In this case that would probably fix it. Some update issues can get |
| 22 |
messy if you don't update often, but usually for EAPI issues you just |
| 23 |
need to update portage itself. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives