| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:18:38PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:24:27 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > But there's not a lot of point as eudev isn't that different to udev |
| 5 |
> > > now, AFAICT, and a recent update forced me to switch back to udev |
| 6 |
> > > because eudev hadn't been updated (on ~amd64). |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Can you elaborate on what this update was that forced you to go back to |
| 9 |
> > regular udev? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I can't remember what it was now, and it may have been avoidable by |
| 12 |
> making virtual/udev-206 (or whichever version it was that needed a higher |
| 13 |
> udev version than eudev could provide). It's moot now as eudev has been |
| 14 |
> updated and portage is happy again, but it would be a concern if this |
| 15 |
> happened regularly. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I ran into this. Here is what I think happened... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
- I specified "sys-fs/eudev-1.2-r1-beta ~amd64" (or something similar) |
| 20 |
in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file |
| 21 |
- I ran "emerge --sync". On that particular day, it removed the beta |
| 22 |
version ebuild, and replaced it with eudev-1.2.ebuild |
| 23 |
- "emerge --changed-use --deep --update @world" could no longer find an |
| 24 |
unmasked version of sys-fs/eudev that satisfied virtual/udev. So it |
| 25 |
fell back to a version of sys-fs/udev |
| 26 |
- My workaround, *UNTIL SUCH TIME AS EUDEV HITS STABLE AMD64*, is... |
| 27 |
<sys-fs/eudev-9999 ~amd64 |
| 28 |
in my /etc/portage/package.keywords file. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
This specifies to accept the highest ebuild number that is smaller |
| 31 |
than 9999 (the "bleeding edge" version). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> |
| 35 |
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications |
Archives