| 1 |
On Thursday 18 November 2010 22:41:49 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> With all these changes it's hard to give firm advice, except to say this: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> If conf-update wants to make changes to package categories, and eix on your |
| 6 |
> machine gives the same new ones as the new config file, then make the |
| 7 |
> change. Otherwise find out why you are out of step. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Yep, eix is telling me that suggested changes are sane and therefore I should |
| 10 |
accept them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> having said that, yes it does look like you have enlightenment overlay |
| 13 |
> uninstalled and the efl one installed. And it looks like you are now going |
| 14 |
> to switch them back around again. Life on the bleeding edge is fun, right? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Fun but uncomfortable! |
| 17 |
===================================== |
| 18 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "dev-libs/e_dbus" have been masked. |
| 21 |
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: |
| 22 |
- dev-libs/e_dbus-1.0.0_beta2 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) |
| 23 |
===================================== |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
So it seems that I should delete efl, install enlightenment overlay instead, |
| 26 |
remove any package.keywords on all 9999 ** packages (?) that I had set up for |
| 27 |
efl and instead unmask beta versions of packages as portage is telling me to |
| 28 |
do. Have I got this right, or should I leave 9999 ** in my package keywords |
| 29 |
for the enlightenment packages? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I may wait until Sunday or so in the hope that all this dust has settled, |
| 32 |
because I fear that I may be caught half-way between changes on efl and |
| 33 |
enlightenment overlays with no way of installing a working desktop. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Thanks again for holding my hand on this. |
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Mick |
Archives