| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> Paul Hartman wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> Hi, |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> I normally do "emerge -uDvN @world" (or in other words "emerge |
| 10 |
>>>> --update --deep --verbose --newuse @world"). Right now, it tells me |
| 11 |
>>>> this: |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>> Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 kB |
| 14 |
>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>> I also --depclean on a regular basis to remove any unneeded packages. |
| 16 |
>>>> Right now, it tells me this: |
| 17 |
>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>> No packages selected for removal by depclean |
| 19 |
>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>> Based on those two commands, I'm led to believe I have a fully updated |
| 21 |
>>>> system. So, then, I am curious why when I do "emerge -e @world" it |
| 22 |
>>>> tells me this: |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> Total: 1432 packages (9 upgrades, 2 downgrades, 14 new, 1407 |
| 25 |
>>>> reinstalls, 1 interactive), Size of downloads: 76,235 kB |
| 26 |
>>>> |
| 27 |
>>>> How is that possible? Where do those upgrades, downgrades and new |
| 28 |
>>>> packages come from? What is missing from my traditional "-uDvN" |
| 29 |
>>>> command that is causing me to miss some of those updates? |
| 30 |
>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>> Thanks, |
| 32 |
>>>> Paul |
| 33 |
>>>> |
| 34 |
>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>> |
| 36 |
>>>> |
| 37 |
>>> Read a few of the other posts, make sure that @world is including the |
| 38 |
>>> system set. Either just use world with no @ or do a @system and @world. |
| 39 |
>>> |
| 40 |
>>> --depclean should have mentioned that when you ran it too. It does here |
| 41 |
>>> but you may be on a different version than I am. |
| 42 |
>>> |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> Thanks for that, I didn't realize there was a difference between |
| 45 |
>> "@world" and "world". I've looked at the sets.conf file but honestly |
| 46 |
>> it is over my head. My "world_sets" file does include @system, though, |
| 47 |
>> so hopefully there was nothing wrong in that regard. |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> Thanks, |
| 50 |
>> Paul |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> I think most installs have the system set included in world for now but |
| 56 |
> that may change in the future. As I have posted on -dev, I see the |
| 57 |
> serious need for the sets but I wish to continue using the plain world |
| 58 |
> and it update all the packages that need updating. I think the plain |
| 59 |
> world will be around for a while. There were others that agreed with |
| 60 |
> that thought. As I pointed out, if it has a @ in front, you are in the |
| 61 |
> sets section. If not, then it is the old way. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Good point. I think I'll go back to using "world" instead of "@world", |
| 64 |
since when I say "world" I mean "everything" and "@world" does not (or |
| 65 |
may not) necessarily mean that. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Paul |
Archives