| 1 |
On 6/9/19 1:38 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> While I see that point and quite often it is a good idea, it could |
| 3 |
> also be that a fix is in the newer tree. It could even be that you |
| 4 |
> caught the tree in the middle of some sort of change and you missed |
| 5 |
> part of it. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> If it were me, I'd try everything you can but if you can't find a |
| 8 |
> solution, I'd sync and see what happens. I've had a fresh sync fix |
| 9 |
> issues on a few occasions. It's somewhat rare but can happen. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Just a thought. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Your logic makes sense. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I actually did end up reluctantly doing that at one point when I |
| 16 |
couldn't access my ZFS pool, which contained /usr/portage. So, an |
| 17 |
emerge --sync was run to populate /usr/portage while attempting to fix ZFS. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I abandoned that line of work after a couple of hours and ended up |
| 20 |
restoring my ZFS module backup from a few days prior. That got me |
| 21 |
access to my ZFS pool again. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
So, I'm disinclined to think that it's a bum copy of portage. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But, it is still a valid question to to ask. |
Archives