Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

Ben Kohler wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Samuli Suominen > wrote: > > > Wrong. I'm always using the -t (--tree) flag with Portage and I > would > have seen upower being the culprit immediately, > and second command would have been `eix u

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > Wrong. I'm always using the -t (--tree) flag with Portage and I would > have seen upower being the culprit immediately, > and second command would have been `eix upower` to see available > versions, at which point I would have seen >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

On 04/06/14 19:21, Duncan wrote: > Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:41:23 -0400 as excerpted: > >> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Alan McKinnon >> wrote: >>> Yes, it *is* a simple matter of running one easy command. Portage does >>> that for you with trivial ease. But portage doesn't t

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: news item for upower

Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:41:23 -0400 as excerpted: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Alan McKinnon > wrote: >> >> Yes, it *is* a simple matter of running one easy command. Portage does >> that for you with trivial ease. But portage doesn't tell you *which* is >> the one easy com