1 |
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 17/09/14 16:16, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: |
4 |
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>> On 17/09/14 03:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
6 |
>>>> On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local |
8 |
>>>>> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so. |
9 |
>>>>> |
10 |
>>>> Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy |
11 |
>>>> XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness. |
12 |
>>>> |
13 |
>>>> |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>> That's not it. Portage doesn't work like that. |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> It's because he specifically keyworded 1.3.1 in package.keywords, |
18 |
>>> instead using something smart like: |
19 |
>>> |
20 |
>>> <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999 |
21 |
>>> |
22 |
>>> To get latest non-live version. |
23 |
>>> |
24 |
>> I'm not necessarily after the most recent non-live version of the package. |
25 |
>> I just didn't want lvm2 pulled in as my current setup has no use for it. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> What would you recommend doing, leave things as they are, or keyword |
28 |
>> the stanza you suggested? |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> Thanks. |
31 |
>> |
32 |
> |
33 |
> Notice that I said "_non_-live" and the "<" char in the line. I would |
34 |
> use the stanza (as you said) |
35 |
> because if 1.4.0 is not stabilized before something like 1.4.1 is added |
36 |
> to tree, and 1.4.0 gets |
37 |
> deleted, you are facing the same problem all over again. |
38 |
> As in, <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999 with the < means "I want |
39 |
> latest non-live version." |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
Understood. Thanks. |