| 1 |
On 8/6/21 8:22 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 8:37 AM n952162 <n952162@×××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I was complaining, mostly, that isodate had to be the thing that was |
| 4 |
>> incompatible with my configuration. Maybe there is a unavoidable reason |
| 5 |
>> that that package had to move to the newest EAPI, or maybe it was just a |
| 6 |
>> sense that it's cool to be with the cutting edge. It seems to me that |
| 7 |
>> isodate (which is actually tied, perhaps indirectly, to clearly slow |
| 8 |
>> United Nations rule-making) must be pretty stable. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> ... |
| 11 |
> It might not hurt if that error message included the suggestion to run |
| 12 |
> "emerge -u portage" to update it. It does say that the solution is to |
| 13 |
> update portage - it just doesn't explicitly tell you how to do so. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The way out of my dilema would be first to emerge portage and then |
| 17 |
emerge @world? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ... |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> To address your follow-up email, many popular binary distros have been |
| 24 |
> working on reproducible builds, so if your main concern is fear of |
| 25 |
> what might be bundled inside packages, I'd think that would mitigate a |
| 26 |
> lot of it. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I will look into reproducible builds, thank you. |
Archives