From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JMR6X-0005Tq-9E for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:57:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 968EAE038D; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from creativecommunications.com (creativecommunications.com [65.17.124.162]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7869AE038D for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.178] (unknown [192.168.1.178]) by creativecommunications.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60D7968C121 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:55:14 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <47A894F2.3060700@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:55:14 -0600 From: Andrew Gaffney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071228) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-catalyst] setarch blocked by util-linux References: <3f456b460802050809o65531925v21c8dec07b12dee3@mail.gmail.com> <47A88BE0.4090507@gentoo.org> <3f456b460802050824y3288a5c4y5c2b3173eb5acdbd@mail.gmail.com> <200802051147.05912.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200802051147.05912.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 72f99442-023a-460d-8dd3-7fa6311b6646 X-Archives-Hash: 27a9f9131ba6548998a1a1dabbdb2ce0 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 05 February 2008, Derek Fedel wrote: >> Ah, silly me. I should've figured it was something along those lines, >> but I had read mention of catalyst not forcing setarch anymore in the >> ChangeLog and got confused, I guess. Thanks, and sorry for the now >> seemingly inane question. > > please fix your quoting ... top posting is the devil I concur :P >> On Feb 5, 2008 8:16 AM, Andrew Gaffney wrote: >>> Derek Fedel wrote: >>>> I know! I know! 2.0.5 isn't supposed to have this problem. Let me >>>> explain, I've got a brand new install of 2007.0, a fresh copy of >>>> portage, and this as my spec file: >>> How many times do we have to say this? :P >>> >>> If you're going to build your own CD, you also need to build your own set >>> of stages with the same snapshot. This is the *only* way to completely >>> avoid the various upgrade blockers that occur in the tree. > > is there a catalyst/stages FAQ ? if not, there should be ... Are you volunteering? :) -- Andrew Gaffney http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Catalyst/Installer + x86 release coordinator -- gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org mailing list