Re: [gentoo-catalyst] Binary package dependencies and update_seed

["W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:24:19PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina
> <zerochaos@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > We already don't BUILD any new packages during update_seed.  Originally
> > we did, I encountered issues and fixed it in
> > e7ea409acb52b43e9ea141c57201f9f87673f7ba to prevent building of packages
> > during update_seed.
> 
> Right, I see.
> 
> So, to make sure that I'm on the same page: is the the problem that
> we're using stale packages in stage1 and if so, where did they come
> from? A previous stage1 build that didn't do update-seed?

That's where mine (and presumably iamben's) came from.  However, they
could also (I think) come from a stage1 build that used an older
snapshot.  I'm testing now with a build from:

  subarch: i686
  version_stamp: 2013.1
  target: stage1
  rel_type: default
  profile: default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop
  portage_confdir: /var/tmp/catalyst/portage-conf/default/
  snapshot: 20130208
  source_subpath: default/stage3-i686-20121213
  update_seed: yes

Followed by another build with the same version_stamp but using:

  snapshot: 20130308

The idea is that the first build might produce packages linking
libmpc.so.2, and the second build might reuse those packages, despite
the stabilization of mpc-1.0.1 in the tree.  I'm currently 31/75 on
the first build, so it will be a bit longer before results are in.

Cheers,
Trevor

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]