[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: %n in writable segment detected ??

[Ryan Hill]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:

> What's the below "%n in writable segment detected" bit all about?
> Should I worry about it?  I saw it once before but have no clue
> whether it's portage/emerge itself outputting it (I would guess yes,
> QA warning??), or one of the build processes.
>
> I'm guessing it's a warning from portage's newer parallel jobs
> processing that you guys may be interested in (a bug to trace down?
> file it??  any other info beyond the below that would be useful?  how
> to duplicate? etc.) but don't know and obviously haven't the foggiest
> how serious it is.  But it didn't cause anything to barf, so I
> figured it couldn't be too bad.  But it's still worrying not knowing
> what it is, when it's obviously important enough to break the
> parallel jobs enforced backgrounding.
>
> ~amd64/2008.0/no-multilib, portage-2.2_rc25 (now, previously with a
> different _rc)
>
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]
> >>> Verifying ebuild manifests
> >>> Starting parallel fetch
> >>> Emerging (1 of 5) sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
> >>> Emerging (2 of 5) sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
> >>> Installing sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
> >>> Installing sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
> >>> Emerging (3 of 5) sys-fs/udev-140
> >>> Emerging (4 of 5) sys-apps/coreutils-7.1
> >>> Jobs: 2 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 4.81,
> >>> 3.95,
> 2.11*** %n in writable segment detected ***
>
> Thanks!

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257279

-- 
gcc-porting,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257279
by design, by neglect treecleaner,                              for a
fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD
C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662