From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PIhOK-000096-0T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:45:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 84D10E0969; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB6DE0969 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:44:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zaphod.digimed.co.uk (zaphod.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C46C03BBB55 for ; Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:44:40 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:44:36 +0000 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] why portage downgrade? Message-ID: <20101117124436.69c82487@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <4824.1289997001@ccs.covici.com> References: <4824.1289997001@ccs.covici.com> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6cvs63 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/oPJRf3hn.mBcdG=t/3eli=Z"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 484d26c0-f7f2-4dae-836d-d0004b228f6d X-Archives-Hash: 2ec3742f78f3a4279572aaadb8b1aa85 --Sig_/oPJRf3hn.mBcdG=t/3eli=Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 07:30:01 -0500, covici@ccs.covici.com wrote: > I currently am using unstable gentoo and have 2.2.0_alpha1. Now if I > obey instructions, portage will be downgraded to 2.1.9.24. I really > prefer the 2.2 series unless something has gone very wrong, why is this > happening and how can I prevent this? This is covered in the ChangeLog and has already been discussed on this list. --=20 Neil Bothwick Top Oxymorons Number 35: Legally drunk --Sig_/oPJRf3hn.mBcdG=t/3eli=Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkzjzjgACgkQum4al0N1GQPkLQCgx7psUBLk0AkLRhBkIKR7hNjl rjUAnjSDr3FPcSNmvmwMGbFpQa1MC0vS =GhWG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/oPJRf3hn.mBcdG=t/3eli=Z--