Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: ABCD <en.ABCD@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:24:46
Message-Id: gpmn2t$2vs$1@ger.gmane.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ? by Allan Gottlieb
1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
2 Hash: SHA1
3
4 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
5 > Gnome-light recently went stable on x86 so my last emerge world produced
6 > a long list of packages to merge. Fine.
7 >
8 > At the end it says
9 >
10 > Total: 93 packages (87 upgrades, 4 new, 2 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 223,796 kB
11 > Conflict: 3 blocks
12 > Portage tree and overlays:
13 > [0] /usr/portage
14 > [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined
15 >
16 > Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]
17 >
18 > Since it offers to merge and there are no B's in the list, I assume
19 > this version of portage resolved the blockage. However, there are
20 > nearly a hundred packages and some of them are important so I would like
21 > to confirm that it is OK to let portage merge these.
22 >
23 > thanks,
24 > allan
25 >
26
27 It should be ok, and as there are "3 blocks", you will probably find
28 three instances of "[blocks b ]" (note the lowercase "b"), which are
29 automatically resolved (usually) by an "[unmerge ]" line further
30 down (or up, if you are using --tree). This corresponds to the new
31 behavior, which automatically fixes problems like the old
32 e2fsprogs/com_err/ss/e2fsprogs-libs blocker, without breaking anything
33 (well, the system may be in an inconsistent state if you loose power at
34 *exactly* the wrong time, but that can happen anyway during a merge,
35 even without this new behavior).
36
37 PS: I hope I didn't ramble on too much... this was going to be much
38 longer, and less coherent.
39 - --
40 ABCD
41 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
42 Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
43 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
44
45 iEYEARECAAYFAkm+35EACgkQOypDUo0oQOpZ9ACeKsemyDPiGoB6ndNNSA2KU6qP
46 a40AoLZuz6X72pIC4L4lREs7AIb/Muo2
47 =ilvV
48 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ? Allan Gottlieb <gottlieb@×××.edu>