| 1 |
On Sunday 21 September 2008 14:08:46 haoniukun wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thank you for all your attention and reply. |
| 3 |
> I installed an older version of bash and reinstalled portage. |
| 4 |
> This works for me at least. |
| 5 |
> Now the system's working fine for me. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
You'll probably find that you can now update python, python-updater and bash |
| 8 |
normally. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What happened way back is that a new portage took advantage of new bash |
| 11 |
features, but in such a way that the new bash was required. Obviously, you |
| 12 |
can't install this new portage with an old bash (stuff won't work), so |
| 13 |
blockers were out in place. Trouble with that is, there is no way to tell |
| 14 |
portage you are updating both and it should just go ahead and do it. Portage |
| 15 |
will likely never do such a thing, as there is no guarantee when you start |
| 16 |
emergeing two packages that they will both succeed, so portage can't |
| 17 |
guarantee what the end result will be. The ideal solution would be to update |
| 18 |
bash, then python but that wouldn't work either as portage would always |
| 19 |
select them the wrong way round.... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Sounds complex (it is), but fortunately this kind of thing is rare. I forget |
| 22 |
the finer details now, but the general method was not to just update bash, |
| 23 |
but to rather update it to an intermediate version, then update the other |
| 24 |
packages (which didn't block) and finally update bash to the most recent |
| 25 |
version. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
IIRC at the time, the blocker messages were confusing in the extreme, it was |
| 28 |
obvious to the developer what to do and not at all obvious to most other |
| 29 |
people. Most of us spent a lot of time scratching our heads back then :-) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Welcome to the world of computers where the machine always does what you ask |
| 32 |
not what you want :-) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives