| 1 |
On 05/01/2013 02:42 PM, James Cloos wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> "ZM" == Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> writes: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> ZM> That commit allows backtracking to continue in the event that unsolved |
| 5 |
> ZM> blockers are encountered, solving this bug: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ZM> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=465638 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I read the bug. But it was the only commit that at first glance *could* |
| 10 |
> have been the issue. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> ZM> That means that emerge may spend some more time backtracking in some |
| 13 |
> ZM> cases involving blockers, even though the backtracking may not |
| 14 |
> ZM> ultimately lead to a useful solution. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Five hours more, in my case. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> ZM> Did your test case involve blockers? Are you using the --backtrack |
| 19 |
> ZM> option to increase the amount of backtracking that is allowed? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Yes. There are several blockers and at some point in the fuzzy past I |
| 22 |
> added --backtrack=30 to get around some issue which was preventing the |
| 23 |
> automated sync && pv from reporting any possible updates. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Okay, then I'd suggest to use a lower --backtrack setting (10 is |
| 26 |
default), at least until you decide how you are going to resolve the |
| 27 |
blockers. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Thanks, |
| 30 |
Zac |
Archives