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----- |