Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com>
To: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage 9999 at commit 2d5e38b495776e5bb2266848a3365667f3ca7233 **SLOW**
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 21:50:05
Message-Id: m3ppxaml5k.fsf@carbon.jhcloos.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage 9999 at commit 2d5e38b495776e5bb2266848a3365667f3ca7233 **SLOW** by Zac Medico
1 >>>>> "ZM" == Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> writes:
2
3 ZM> That commit allows backtracking to continue in the event that unsolved
4 ZM> blockers are encountered, solving this bug:
5
6 ZM> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465638
7
8 I read the bug. But it was the only commit that at first glance *could*
9 have been the issue.
10
11 ZM> That means that emerge may spend some more time backtracking in some
12 ZM> cases involving blockers, even though the backtracking may not
13 ZM> ultimately lead to a useful solution.
14
15 Five hours more, in my case.
16
17 ZM> Did your test case involve blockers? Are you using the --backtrack
18 ZM> option to increase the amount of backtracking that is allowed?
19
20 Yes. There are several blockers and at some point in the fuzzy past I
21 added --backtrack=30 to get around some issue which was preventing the
22 automated sync && pv from reporting any possible updates.
23
24 The larger backtrace allowed pv to complete. Then the scripts use -O
25 to merge a few packages at a time in the pv order.
26
27 As a side note, my next workstation will split most stuff into smaller
28 topic-spcific VMs so as to avoid the annoying conflicts which occur when
29 one tries to keep everything one might need available at once.
30
31 -JimC
32 --
33 James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Replies