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 4.43) id 1Dubdf-0001Bl-10 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:50:55 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j6IJmdhJ013177; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:48:39 GMT Received: from vuosaari.hai.fi (vuosaari.hai.fi [62.142.210.66]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j6IJdxaU022452 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:39:59 GMT Received: by vuosaari.hai.fi (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 841162BC1E; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:37:19 +0300 (EEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by vuosaari.hai.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8153337B63 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:37:19 +0300 (EEST) Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 22:37:19 +0300 (EEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tero_Grundstr=F6m?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness... In-Reply-To: <42DBF342.3060909@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <200507180914.10940.dmitry@athabascau.ca> <42DBF342.3060909@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: ab423296-4748-4434-8cdf-e78e1785c968 X-Archives-Hash: 4f8d1a7127a30522eb3d5c76b4c0a3f1 On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Zac Medico wrote: > Dmitry S. Makovey wrote: >> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp I've >> noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week it's 1.12.0 >> another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does anybody know what >> might trigger this behavior? >> > > There's a portage bug that fits that description: > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13632. When I encounter this I simply > package mask the lower versions. > > mkdir /etc/portage > echo "> /etc/portage/package.mask That is not the correct way as this bug is caused by packages not functioning correctly with *newer* versions. In this case gnumeric doesn't like libgsf versions above 1.10. If you think gnumeric does work well with the newest version of libgsf and that the package maintainer is setting wrongly the dependency version, please file a bug. -- T.G. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list