Re: [gentoo-user] Invalid db entry: /var/db/pkg/*sys-fs/devfsd ... in x86 stable!
It doesn't justify not committing the fix to stable either. Certainly, it is not clear to anybody starting out that it is a cosmetic bug. My point is that it wasn't tested and it is not stable (although it is functional). Tom Veldhouse - Original Message - From: "Ciaran McCreesh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Invalid db entry: /var/db/pkg/*sys-fs/devfsd ... in x86 stable! On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:32:26 -0600 "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Nothing has worked. However, what I need to know is if there is an | actual process to fix this. If not, the patch needs to be commited to | "stable"(x86) ASAP or the current version of portage in stable needs | to be revoked as unstable. Why? It's a minor cosmetic bug that doesn't cause any data loss. That doesn't justify making everyone downgrade. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail:ciaranm at gentoo.org Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Invalid db entry: /var/db/pkg/*sys-fs/devfsd ... in x86 stable!
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 11:32:26 -0600 "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | Nothing has worked. However, what I need to know is if there is an | actual process to fix this. If not, the patch needs to be commited to | "stable"(x86) ASAP or the current version of portage in stable needs | to be revoked as unstable. Why? It's a minor cosmetic bug that doesn't cause any data loss. That doesn't justify making everyone downgrade. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail:ciaranm at gentoo.org Web: http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Invalid db entry: /var/db/pkg/*sys-fs/devfsd ... in x86 stable!
Hello all ... to the list .. welcome back after the unexplained hiatus. Often, after an emerge of a particular package, I see this error: Invalid db entry: /var/db/pkg/*sys-fs/devfsd I have followed all the directions according to the link below ... EXCEPT for manually patching portage. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31881 Nothing has worked. However, what I need to know is if there is an actual process to fix this. If not, the patch needs to be commited to "stable" (x86) ASAP or the current version of portage in stable needs to be revoked as unstable. Is there anything I should do in the meantime? I don't relish the patch because of the possibility of the bug coming back if the package were refreshed. Tom Veldhouse -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
