From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EDA21384B4 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:45:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B777721C085; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:44:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9977621C004 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a7weT-0001We-ON for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:44:45 +0100 Received: from ppp-2-87-123-87.home.otenet.gr ([2.87.123.87]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:44:45 +0100 Received: from realnc by ppp-2-87-123-87.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 13 Dec 2015 03:44:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Nikos Chantziaras Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Why does portage want to downgrade Grub? Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 04:44:33 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3D717B2A-1CB9-4DA8-B96D-E08602AD28B4@digimed.co.uk> 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: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-2-87-123-87.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 In-Reply-To: <3D717B2A-1CB9-4DA8-B96D-E08602AD28B4@digimed.co.uk> X-Archives-Salt: 8676bf93-436b-4d79-8182-ea9e0d47b302 X-Archives-Hash: b03753d1b03bd6de8153ee2e54b63c26 On 13/12/15 00:56, Neil Bothwick wrote: > Hm, indeed. grub-0.97-r16.ebuild was missing from the manifest, but it's > weird that this would affect 2.02_beta2-r7. It > shouldn't, right? > > If the manifest fails, all ebuilds in that directory are considered > suspect. Is the version portage wants to downgrade to in an overlay? Nope. Portage-tree only.