| 1 |
On 9/6/21 3:48 PM, n952162 wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 4/3/21 10:03 PM, n952162 wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked |
| 4 |
>> up. The --debug option (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional |
| 5 |
>> information. Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately, saying 0 |
| 6 |
>> packages are selected. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I found one problem: on my server, my apache log file had a 302 fetch |
| 9 |
>> error for /var/cache/binpkgs/Packages. I touched it a few hours into |
| 10 |
>> the future and started getting a 200 for it. But still no emerge would |
| 11 |
>> fetch a binary (even though there ARE good candidates). On a guess, I |
| 12 |
>> touched all the files in binpkgs an hour into the future, but that |
| 13 |
>> didn't help. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Binary updates are VERY useful for virtual machines. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Unfortunately, there hasn't really been a resolution on this issue. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think it's reasonable that if portage accesses a package on a binary |
| 22 |
> server and decides it's not eligible, it should report the reason for |
| 23 |
> rejecting it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Is it possible to make requests for improvements in gentoo? |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In the current case, llvm-common came across as binary, thunderbird and |
| 30 |
firefox are also listed as a *binary* update, but llvm is an *ebuild*. |
| 31 |
Neither host (binary server) nor the client (updating system) have any |
| 32 |
USE flags defined for llvm. I know of no way to figure out what went wrong. |
Archives