| 1 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:53:13 +0100, Zeerak Waseem wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> 3) With set files in /usr/portage/sets and running "emerge -u @foo" |
| 4 |
> >> portage yields that @foo isn't a valid package atom, any idea why |
| 5 |
> >> this is? |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Your portage is too old? In case of an error, you should get an |
| 8 |
> > "emerge: There are no sets to satisfy 'foo'" message, and a list of |
| 9 |
> > known sets. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> Ah well, having the sets in the wrong place would give me an error. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yes, but that would be a "set not found" error, not a "WTF is this |
| 14 |
@" error. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> And regarding portage version, weren't sets included in v. 2.x.x? My |
| 17 |
> portage version is 2.1.7.16, anything above seems to be hardmasked... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sets need portage 2.2, you'll have to unmask it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Q: How many builders does it take to change a light bulb? |
| 26 |
A: "If only it was just the light bulb......we'll have to replace the |
| 27 |
ceiling and..........." |
Archives