| 1 |
Alejandro wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> 2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk <mailto:neil@××××××××××.uk>> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the |
| 9 |
> block |
| 10 |
> > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by |
| 11 |
> > > recent portage releases. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some |
| 14 |
> > time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to |
| 15 |
> > resolve it by hand. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on |
| 18 |
> stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first |
| 19 |
> appeared |
| 20 |
> on ~arch systems. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> -- |
| 24 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the |
| 30 |
> problem a couple of week ago, and i don/t remember any portage update,,, |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I know portage-2.2_rc20 works well. I have not had any trouble on mine |
| 33 |
and you may want to give it a shot. It is still keyworded I think but |
| 34 |
it does handle the blocks very well. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Your choice on whether to install or not. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Dale |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
:-) :-) |
Archives