| 1 |
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:24:19PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 3 |
> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > We already don't BUILD any new packages during update_seed. Originally |
| 5 |
> > we did, I encountered issues and fixed it in |
| 6 |
> > e7ea409acb52b43e9ea141c57201f9f87673f7ba to prevent building of packages |
| 7 |
> > during update_seed. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Right, I see. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> So, to make sure that I'm on the same page: is the the problem that |
| 12 |
> we're using stale packages in stage1 and if so, where did they come |
| 13 |
> from? A previous stage1 build that didn't do update-seed? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That's where mine (and presumably iamben's) came from. However, they |
| 16 |
could also (I think) come from a stage1 build that used an older |
| 17 |
snapshot. I'm testing now with a build from: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
subarch: i686 |
| 20 |
version_stamp: 2013.1 |
| 21 |
target: stage1 |
| 22 |
rel_type: default |
| 23 |
profile: default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop |
| 24 |
portage_confdir: /var/tmp/catalyst/portage-conf/default/ |
| 25 |
snapshot: 20130208 |
| 26 |
source_subpath: default/stage3-i686-20121213 |
| 27 |
update_seed: yes |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Followed by another build with the same version_stamp but using: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
snapshot: 20130308 |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
The idea is that the first build might produce packages linking |
| 34 |
libmpc.so.2, and the second build might reuse those packages, despite |
| 35 |
the stabilization of mpc-1.0.1 in the tree. I'm currently 31/75 on |
| 36 |
the first build, so it will be a bit longer before results are in. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Cheers, |
| 39 |
Trevor |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 43 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives