On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:55 +0200, b.n. wrote:
> > Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
> > baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
> > package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
> > also shows that this is
Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
> idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Now it m
Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I would upgrade your "extremely stupid" opinion to something more
> like "Ravenous Bluggbatter Beast of Traal level stupidity". Yup, it
> really is that bad and the flood of user support questions from this is
> going to be quite long.
While I agree t
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:34:56 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> > > upgraded.
> > So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.
>
> Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very
> different setups.
Fou
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Also this package is in ~arch and left package.mask recently, so it is
> under testing and you have to expect problems!
problems, yes. The nuking of important config files and non-boot: no.
That is complety inacceptable for something that
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> > On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> >> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/base
> >>lay out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
> >
> > oh great, changes without a
Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay
out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that.
No need for a rev bump here i guess! Anybody who
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay
>out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:53 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> > It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> > upgraded.
>
> Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and
> there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance
> of /e
Michael Schmarck schrieb:
· Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Because you didn't read the elog messages.
it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.
It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the
· Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> > Because you didn't read the elog messages.
>>
>> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.
>
> It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three mach
12 matches
Mail list logo
