| 1 |
Hi there, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 "stable" (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the "an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it" message. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Now: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
# emerge -up world |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 14 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
# emerge -up system |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 21 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
# emerge -up portage |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 28 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE="less%*" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
# |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as "oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage" (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 ("stable") as possible. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: |
| 37 |
Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? |
| 38 |
Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. |
| 41 |
Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
TIA, |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Stroller. |
Archives