| 1 |
"John P. Burkett" <burkett@×××.edu> posted 49FDCD09.7070204@×××.edu, |
| 2 |
excerpted below, on Sun, 03 May 2009 12:57:45 -0400: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Thanks, Duncan. Yesterday I did eix-sync shortly before emerge --search |
| 5 |
> portage. To see if a new portage version became available overnight, I |
| 6 |
> just now did eix-sync and emerge --search portage. The results are the |
| 7 |
> same; the latest version available version of sys-apps/portage is still |
| 8 |
> listed as 2.1.6.11, which is the version I have installed. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I attempted to manually download the source file, and place it in |
| 11 |
> distfiles, and then run emerge. Specifically, I downloaded |
| 12 |
> texlive-module-collection-latexextra-2008.tar.lzma from |
| 13 |
> http://ftp.ussg.iu.edu/linux/gentoo/distfiles/?C=N%3BO=D and placed the |
| 14 |
> file in /usr/portage/distfiles. Then I did "emerge texlive-latexextra". |
| 15 |
> The response stated with |
| 16 |
>>>> Verifying ebuild manifests |
| 17 |
>>>> Emerging (1 of 1) dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra-2008-r1 |
| 18 |
> [Errno 7] Argument list too long: |
| 19 |
> /bin/bash -c touch "/usr/portage/distfiles/.__portage_test_write__" |
| 20 |
> 2>/dev/null ; rval=$? ; rm -f |
| 21 |
> "/usr/portage/distfiles/.__portage_test_write__" ; exit $rval |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That's clearly a portage bug (even if we didn't already know it based on |
| 24 |
the bug you mentioned and the new versions that are /supposed/ to be |
| 25 |
out), as that argument list isn't even that long at all. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So one way or another, we gotta get around that bug. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
One thing I noticed is that it's an lzma archive, which isn't all that |
| 30 |
common yet. You've verified that you can decompress that source archive |
| 31 |
manually, right? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Meanwhile, on portage upgrade side... |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
After a fresh sync to ensure I'm updated here, epkginfo portage shows the |
| 36 |
following: |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Keywords: portage-2.1.4.5: |
| 39 |
Keywords: portage-2.1.6.4: |
| 40 |
Keywords: portage-2.1.6.7: |
| 41 |
Keywords: portage-2.1.6.11: alpha amd64 arm hppa ia64 m68k ppc ppc64 s390 |
| 42 |
sh sparc x86 |
| 43 |
Keywords: portage-2.1.6.12: |
| 44 |
Keywords: portage-2.2_rc28: |
| 45 |
Keywords: portage-2.2_rc31: |
| 46 |
Keywords: portage-2.2_rc32: ~alpha ~amd64 ~arm ~hppa ~ia64 ~m68k ~mips |
| 47 |
~ppc ~ppc64 ~s390 ~sh ~sparc ~sparc-fbsd ~x86 ~x86-fbsd |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
So 2.1.6.12 is indeed in-tree, but no arch has keyworded it stable yet. |
| 50 |
I don't see any masking and checking the ebuild itself, I see it's |
| 51 |
keyworded ~arch. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
As it happens, I'm on ~arch and am running the 2.2-rc series. I had |
| 54 |
upgraded to rc32 before my first reply, and as has become my habit as a |
| 55 |
good admin, I checked the changelog before I upgraded. I thus noted |
| 56 |
mention of the fix for "bug #262647 ('Argument list too long' triggered |
| 57 |
by long SRC_URI)". |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
So... I don't know why it hasn't been stable-keyworded, except that archs |
| 60 |
probably haven't gotten to it yet, but you might wish to consider adding: |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
~sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.12 |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
... to your package.keywords file or directory. (See the portage (5) |
| 65 |
manpage for details if you aren't familiar with package.keywords.) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
That will accept the unstable ~arch for just that one version of portage, |
| 68 |
including any revisions, should there be any necessary, thus allowing you |
| 69 |
to merge that version, which should have your bugfix. =:^) |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Since you're a stable user, presumably because you don't normally want |
| 72 |
the potential hassle of testing ~arch, I'd not recommend you just put |
| 73 |
portage in there (without a version), as there are indeed occasional |
| 74 |
issues ~arch users have to deal with, and when they're in the package |
| 75 |
manager... OTOH, ~arch users like me enjoy the challenge of being guinea |
| 76 |
pigs for stable users as well as getting newer packages even if it means |
| 77 |
occasional problems to deal with, and there's a place for both types of |
| 78 |
users. |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
There are other alternatives too. Did you try using the --fetchonly |
| 81 |
option? The bug mentions that worked for some people. |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
There's some additional discussion on why it happens -- are you using an |
| 84 |
old kernel (<2.6.23)? They had shorter max commandline lengths. Thus, |
| 85 |
upgrading your kernel is presumably another alternative. |
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
You can also try the specific patch on top of your current portage |
| 88 |
version. Of course, in this case it looks like you'd need SVN as all Zac |
| 89 |
mentions in the bug is the SVN revision number, but it's a common enough |
| 90 |
technique for folks wanting to keep tested and otherwise known to work |
| 91 |
versions. |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
-- |
| 94 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 95 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 96 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives