| 1 |
Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and |
| 5 |
>> currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Nevertheless, it isn't the latest version. To get that you need an entry in |
| 8 |
> package.unmask; then portage will be able to sort out far more complex |
| 9 |
> problems than the unmasked version can. Don't worry - many people here have |
| 10 |
> been doing this for many months, with no problems attributable to portage. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm not sure if upgrading portage to a masked version is a sane solution |
| 14 |
for the OP's issue (i.e. resolving a single dependency issue). |
| 15 |
Reading the error output from portage (and sometimes the ebuild) to |
| 16 |
solve the blocker (as people do who run a stable portage) would suffice, |
| 17 |
imho. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As for the issue with openrc: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
=sys-apps/openrc-0.6.0-r1 depends on =sys-apps/sysvinit-2.87-r3, and |
| 22 |
both are in ~arch. Unmask both, emerge them, run etc-update and be fine. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Tom |
Archives