Re: [gentoo-user] update problems

[lee]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes:

> On 20/09/2015 17:28, lee wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:36:06 +0200, lee wrote:

> [...]
>>>> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been
>>>> pulled !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
> [...]
>>> These are unimportant, it is simply portage telling you it is not
>>> updating some packages to the latest available and why. Personally, I
>>> believe this sort of output should only be shown when using --verbose.
>>
> [...]
>> Should I always ignore such messages?
>
> No, you should not ignore such messages. They are printed for a reason.

Well, what can I do other than ignore them?  With dependencies as they
are, and given that I don't want to remove packages, some of the
packages that could be upgraded to newer versions won't be upgraded
because otherwise things might be broken.  There's nothing I could do
about that, or is there?

> You have a SLOT conflict and whether that prevents you from proceeding
> or not doesn't change the fact that portage knows you have that conflict.

Is it possible to solve this conflict without removing packages?

> In your specific case today, I believe portage will simply install the
> lesser version and be done with it, but it will only do that when you
> fix the USE issue (a whole separate issue)

Probably --- yet it tells me about conflicts, makes them appear to be
important, and leaves me wondering how to solve them.

> [...]
> The USE conflict for sure. Maybe the SLOT conflict but I think portage
> will just deal with that one
> [...]
>> This one doesn't look very important, or does it?
>
> Chill dude, seriously. The sky is not about to fall on your head and the
> bits on your disk are not going to miraculously re-arrange themselves
> into Windows just because you can't do this update.

Sure, yet why make unimportant messages look important and important
ones unimportant?

> Portage is what it is, deal with it.
>
> The portage team are all unpaid volunteers just liek everyone else and
> none of us have any right at all to make demands of them. Especially not
> you and I who are not active contribution solutions.

I know --- however, making a suggestion to improve the messages is a
contribution.

> [...]
>> How about adding comments to such messages, like "You don't need to do
>> anything to be able to proceed." and "You need to fix this before you
>> could proceed."?
>
> If emerge exited then you need to fix something in your config.
> If emerge does not exit then your config can be used as-is.

Messages more helpful could make it easier to figure out what needs to
be fixed.

> [...]
>> The last sync I did before the one yesterday wasn't the day before
>> yesterday but over three months ago, so don't ask me today (or next
>> weekend or whenever I give it another try) when that exactly was.  See
>> what I mean?  Asking me to mask all packages to a certain point in time
>> is like asking me to do much of the package management by myself.
>
> Exactly. You DO need to do the package management yourself. The Gentoo
> devs provide useful tools in the form of portage and the tree with it's
> ebuilds and eclasses, plus some amazing automation.
>
> But, are here's the bit where so many people move away from Gentoo:
>
> You are required to do the management yourself, including most of the
> thinking and all of the sweeping up of broken pieces. That's what you
> signed up for when using Gentoo.

Perhaps not so many people would move away if the messages were
improved.

> If you want to roll back the tree, then you need to implement a
> solution that will let you do it as Gentoo does nto provide one. Git
> now makes this easier.

Converting to btrfs might work for that, if I can boot from it.

> However, tree rollbacks are inadvisable for excellent technical reasons
> - see if you can figure them out. Better to snapshot your entire system
> and revert the snapshot if it goes south.

That's not even advisable with sources, though IIRC, the reasons for
that might not apply here.  However, it's weird that a system like git
makes it inadvisable to undo something, considering that being able to
undo something very easily, is one important reason to invent and use
such a system in the first place.

Using snapshots for undoing things git is quite an application of
overengineering.


-- 
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us.  Finally, this fear has become reasonable.