| 1 |
Simon Stelling posted <443BC67A.5030002@g.o>, excerpted below, on |
| 2 |
Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:08:42 +0200: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hi all, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> In case you wonder why emerge -uD world shows you a block, note |
| 7 |
> bug 123526 [1]. It's as easy to resolve as every other block: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> # emerge -C linux32 |
| 10 |
> # emerge setarch |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=123526 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Actually, no block here, but I'm wondering why setarch downgraded from 2.0 |
| 15 |
to 1.9. Where'd the 2.0 come from? There's no hint of it ever existing |
| 16 |
in the chlog, and the bug mentioned in the setarch chlog and above doesn't |
| 17 |
mention anything about it either. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Before I did the downgrade, I did an equery f setarch, and it appeared the |
| 20 |
documentation and everything was linux32, even tho the package was |
| 21 |
setarch-2.0, but there's /still/ no indication of why I had setarch-2.0 in |
| 22 |
the /first/ place, or indeed, that it ever existed in the portage tree, |
| 23 |
but I haven't installed anything like that from an overlay. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
$lsl /pkg/All/setarch-* |
| 26 |
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 33610 Apr 11 02:59 /pkg/All/setarch-1.9.tbz2 |
| 27 |
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 24884 Apr 11 02:39 /pkg/All/setarch-2.0.tbz2 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
... 20 minutes apart... only I don't remember merging 2.0. The |
| 30 |
emerge.log has no hint of it either. What WAS happening at that time was |
| 31 |
that I was in the middle of a script that does emerge --sync, |
| 32 |
then eupdatedb, then emerge --fetchonly --update --deep --world. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Could the 2.1-pre portage have somehow decided setarch-2.0 was part of the |
| 35 |
fetchonly and merged it or something? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Ahhh... I get it! The sync included a pkg-tree-mv that mved what /was/ |
| 38 |
linux32, to setarch. It was probably linux32-2.0, so that made it |
| 39 |
setarch-2.0 after the move. Of course, there never was an actual |
| 40 |
setarch-2.0, only the 1.8 and 1.9 versions in the tree, so the subsequent |
| 41 |
emerge --update --deep --newuse world said it was downgrading from 2.0 to |
| 42 |
1.9, when it was really upgrading from (the former) linux32-2.0 to a newer |
| 43 |
setarch-1.9. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
I guess I figured out what happened while writing this, but it sure wasn't |
| 46 |
the most intuitive thing! I'm not sure I /like/ portage suddenly claiming |
| 47 |
I just merged a package that I've never heard of before, binary |
| 48 |
package for it appearing out of thin air, when there's no such merge |
| 49 |
recorded in the log, which therefore agrees with my memory that no such |
| 50 |
merge happened at that time! Not intuitive /at/ /all/! =8^\ |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
... I guess I might as well send this, even if I /did/ figure it out. It |
| 53 |
might keep someone else from having to puzzle it out. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 57 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 58 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 59 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
-- |
| 63 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives