| 1 |
I face the same problem so i masked binutils.I also warned toolchain team |
| 2 |
about that. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
In my case i didn't find the reason why portage tried to install unstable |
| 5 |
2.31.1-r4 on my system. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Which package pulls it still a mystery for me . |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
2.30-r4 is latest stable. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I believe after "emerge -av depclean" portage will drop 2.31.1 from your |
| 12 |
system.Maybe 2.29 too. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
But i find this really weird. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Regards. |
| 17 |
Hasan Çalışır |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
15 Nis 2019 Pts 5:41 PM tarihinde allan gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu> şunu |
| 20 |
yazdı: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> On one of my machines I see |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> gottlieb@E6430 ~ $ eselect binutils list |
| 25 |
> [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-2.28.1 * |
| 26 |
> [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-2.29.1 |
| 27 |
> [3] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-2.30 |
| 28 |
> [4] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-2.31.1 |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> But I also see |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> gottlieb@E6430 ~ $ eix -I -e binutils |
| 33 |
> [?] sys-devel/binutils |
| 34 |
> ... |
| 35 |
> (2.28.1) [M]2.28.1 |
| 36 |
> (2.29.1) [M]2.29.1-r1 |
| 37 |
> (2.30) 2.30-r4 |
| 38 |
> (2.31) 2.31.1-r4 ~2.31.1-r5 |
| 39 |
> ... |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> So I am using a masked version of binutils, which seems bad. |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> I presume I should do |
| 44 |
> eselect binutils set 4 |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I am asking for confirmation since I realize breaking binutils |
| 47 |
> is not fun. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> thank you, |
| 50 |
> allan |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> |
Archives