Archives
Archives
| From: | Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again | ||
| Date: | Tue, 16 Aug 2011 00:20:18 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4E49B773.8090802@gmail.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again by "Sebastian Beßler" |
||
| 1 | Sebastian Beßler wrote: |
| 2 | > |
| 3 | > But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n? |
| 4 | > The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge |
| 5 | > spit some error out both times? |
| 6 | > |
| 7 | > Greetings |
| 8 | > |
| 9 | > Sebastian |
| 10 | > |
| 11 | > |
| 12 | |
| 13 | Because autounmask=n assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that is |
| 14 | masked so it didn't suggest it. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | Ain't life confusing? |
| 17 | |
| 18 | Dale |
| 19 | |
| 20 | :-) :-) |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again | "Sebastian Beßler" <sebastian@××××××××××××.de> |