From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15719 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Feb 2003 18:21:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 28653 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 18:21:52 -0000 From: Eric Andresen To: MAL Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <3E54ABDA.4070805@komcept.com> References: <20030216094614.B27729@twobit.net> <3E535F7B.2050406@komcept.com> <1045713598.21001.1.camel@ndiin> <3E54ABDA.4070805@komcept.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1045764262.27123.1.camel@ndiin> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.1- Date: 20 Feb 2003 11:04:22 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage-2.0.47-r2 testing X-Archives-Salt: 7e9c8254-1772-4ea3-8cab-52808d03df6e X-Archives-Hash: b5e681ac8a599a0cee1b8dda5247957a I was refering to lines 22 through 31 of gcc-config-1.3.1.ebuild (and similar for other gcc-config ebuilds). My guess is the changing of the way that portage handled things made this method no longer work. On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 03:20, MAL wrote: > Eric Andresen wrote: > > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 19:56, Terje Kvernes wrote: > > I'm willing to bet that the problem is caused by that particular > > ebuild's changing of the PATH. Just a thought. ;) > > I don't see how.. I have a few (>3) 1.4 systems that went through the > upgrade fine, and looking at them, I can't see any difference in the > PATH settings, between them and my updated-1.2 system. > > MAL -- --Eric Andresen ndiin@asu.edu -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list