1 |
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 18:03:31 +0100 |
2 |
Luis Ressel <aranea@×××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> No, the problem wasn't that rebuilds weren't done (btw: this is not |
5 |
> about @preserved-rebuilds, but about subslot dependencies), but that |
6 |
> updates which would trigger such rebuilds are silently ignored. This |
7 |
> happened to me yesterday while trying --backtrack=0. The available |
8 |
> update to dev-haskell/parsec simply didn't show up (haskell ebuilds |
9 |
> make heavy use of subslot deps), I only noticed this because I knew |
10 |
> there was in fact an update available (thanks to eix-diff). Only after |
11 |
> enabling backtracking Portage found the update. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> This might well be a bug, perhaps I'll examine the situation when I've |
14 |
> got more time. |
15 |
|
16 |
That description is broad, it sounds like you didn't pass -uD to emerge; |
17 |
if it is part of the dependency graph (it should, otherwise this |
18 |
discussion would be useless) and is an update (it is, due to eix-diff), |
19 |
then with -uD it would pull that in. |
20 |
|
21 |
This even doesn't have to do anything with sub-slot dependencies as far |
22 |
as I know; because why would it check the sub-slot dependencies if it |
23 |
were an upgrade, the upgrade takes precedence over the sub-slot |
24 |
dependencies. The other option is that I am confused about this; as you |
25 |
can see, given the possible scenarios that could happen I might have a |
26 |
different one on mind than you do. |
27 |
|
28 |
If backtracking doesn't get to it, it would have to list it as a |
29 |
conflict; if it doesn't do that at the moment, then we certainly have a |
30 |
bug somewhere I think. Thank you in advance for investigating this. |
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
With kind regards, |
34 |
|
35 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
36 |
Gentoo Developer |
37 |
|
38 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
39 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
40 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |