| 1 |
> I guess I'm not clear on the use of 'manual' here. They are |
| 2 |
> automatically added. If they are correctly rebuilt then they shouldn't |
| 3 |
> need to be added a second time, correct? However they are. (Over and |
| 4 |
> over...) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Basically, it is my understanding that if everything is correctly |
| 7 |
> updated then on the second pass it should say there's nothing to do, |
| 8 |
> right? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
No |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I mean, I can add anything to a list of things not to build, but I |
| 15 |
> don't know why I'd add them vs just letting it run and telling me it's |
| 16 |
> doing them a 2nd/3rd time and feeling the job must be done. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I assume there is stuff in these packages that is somehow hard linked |
| 19 |
> to python-2.6 libraries or something and one of these days that will |
| 20 |
> get fixed? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> - Mark |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
RTFM :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
manual |
| 28 |
python-updater has a list of packages that are known to break |
| 29 |
by Python upgrades but can't be determined by methods specified |
| 30 |
above. This check can be disabled if you're sure you've rebuilt |
| 31 |
the package once and it's OK now. |
| 32 |
Enabled by default. |
Archives