| 1 |
On 23/02/2014 18:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, Alan. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
>> On 23/02/2014 14:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> - are you sure that's an emerge failure and not just a convoluted info |
| 7 |
>>>>> message? Perhaps post the entire emerge output. |
| 8 |
>>> I tried it again without the -p, and got the same output. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>>> I think this is a portage bug. At the very least, it's poor |
| 11 |
>>> documentation. I've reported the situation to bugs.gentoo.org, bug |
| 12 |
>>> #502236. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>>> Thanks for the help. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> I don't think you have a portage bug as such (other than the sloppy |
| 18 |
>> bizarre output messages that are going into recent versions). I think we |
| 19 |
>> have bug in an ebuild, probably a maintainer that doesn't quite know how |
| 20 |
>> to navigate these new subslots waters, |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> OK. This is a bit philosophical. The way I see it is even if the main |
| 23 |
> bug is in the libpng ebuild, portage should have a way of protecting |
| 24 |
> itself against whatever is in the ebuild. Currently it's wedged. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I know what you mean. emerge doesn't work, therefore the system is broken. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
>> One of the other replies suggested to unmerge libpng, emerge it back, |
| 32 |
>> and continue with emerge world, @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I'll wait a few days on the response to the bug report, just in case |
| 35 |
> somebody wants me to probe the current state. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>> Chances are this will work around the issue and let you update |
| 38 |
>> everything. There *is* a chance some package(s) won't work with or won't |
| 39 |
>> compile with libpng[1] and you'll have to unwind things again. If this |
| 40 |
>> happens that will be valuable info to add the entry at bgo |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
>> [1] This happened to me at least once before, I had to package.mask the |
| 43 |
>> latest version of the library until the tree sorted itself out. IIRC, it |
| 44 |
>> was libpng then too! |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Surely package management shouldn't be this difficult? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Indeed. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
yum is not this difficult. |
| 51 |
apt is not this difficult. |
| 52 |
FreeBSD ports are not this difficult. |
| 53 |
[Windows OTOH often is this difficult]. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
The big difference is those are binary distros so they have a somewhat |
| 56 |
stable and predictable base. Gentoo is not, Gentoo's base is "whatever |
| 57 |
emerge finds happens to be there". All the complexity, new features and |
| 58 |
weird verbose messages in portage are not there to make things work, |
| 59 |
they are there to detect problems when it doesn't work and prevent |
| 60 |
problem situations from going into the works in the first place. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Personally, I think portage has gone too far and the complex solutions |
| 63 |
are causing problems that are worse than what they attempt to solve. |
| 64 |
Amzing solutions (like sub-slots) aren't really much use in the real |
| 65 |
world if the package maintainers use them incorrectly, right? |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Well that's my 2c. |
| 68 |
I was quite happy with revdep-rebuild |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 73 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives