| 1 |
On Saturday 24 April 2010 14:40:47 billyd wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thanks again Alan, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> No I don't have genlop installed but I will try that. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In /var/log/portage, I didn't actually compare the contents of the |
| 7 |
> duplicates so maybe there is nothing wrong there. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The elog/ directories on all three Gentoo installs are empty. Once I review |
| 10 |
> the messages and take necessary action, I remove those entries. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You say I am using unstable python and stable portage. I am just running |
| 13 |
> what ~amd64 wants to emerge. So I think you are suggesting I unmask |
| 14 |
> unstable portage so it can be installed. If so, I will put that on my list |
| 15 |
> of things to try. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, you are right, I should have said "unmask portage". I've been sing 2.2 |
| 18 |
for so long, I forget it's actually unmasked here, not just unstable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's worth using it, the 2.2 branch of portage does not cause all manner of |
| 21 |
weird things to need to also be unmasked, and you get the benefit of automatic |
| 22 |
blocker resolution, sets, and a few other things too. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I am beginning to wonder whether anything is actually wrong here. Usually, |
| 25 |
> when I run in to some issue I find through the mailing lists, the forums, |
| 26 |
> gentoo bugs or just google searches that someone else is experiencing the |
| 27 |
> same thing. So far, I have not seen anything about this. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Well, quite a few people *did* have elog issues recently here. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I suppose you can be forgiven for making a perfectly reasonable assumption, |
| 32 |
even if it was wrong in the end :-) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives