From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EUuSZ-0005j4-1S for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:13:31 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9QN9wHj007983; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:09:58 GMT Received: from mail.gmx.net (imap.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9QN9v3f024936 for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:09:57 GMT Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2005 23:09:57 -0000 Received: from c135052.adsl.hansenet.de (EHLO [192.168.2.189]) [213.39.135.52] by mail.gmx.net (mp023) with SMTP; 27 Oct 2005 01:09:57 +0200 X-Authenticated: #25576946 Message-ID: <43600D79.7040700@gmx.net> Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:12:57 +0200 From: Marco Matthies User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051014) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Help - Wine-0.9 build failure References: <5bdc1c8b0510261501l1eb9b474ud04febb58a1a97c7@mail.gmail.com> <43600350.9020601@gmx.net> <5bdc1c8b0510261555u18d06d1etff6cf4cc05a282e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5bdc1c8b0510261555u18d06d1etff6cf4cc05a282e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Archives-Salt: 09621364-97ed-4b4c-842c-001873675a7b X-Archives-Hash: 7e14581079c390e5689ccb62208ff30d Mark Knecht wrote: > Hi Marco, > I'm not finding wine-0.9 in portage at all. I guess my servers are > just behind a bit. Guess I'll wait until tomorrow. You can check with 'equery list -p wine' (equery is part of gentoolkit) to see which versions are available in your local portage dir. From the output you gave to your command, it does look like you might have overread my note about wine-0.9 being considered an older version by portage than all the wine-2005xxxx versions, as you don't seem to have masked the older versions (considered by portage to be newer) in package.mask (as otherwise portage wouldn't have suggested merging wine-20050930). Hope that helps, Marco -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list