| 1 |
On Sunday 02 Mar 2014 18:14:04 yac wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:59:49 +0000 |
| 3 |
> Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Sunday 02 Mar 2014 12:21:24 yac wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
--->8 |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> > > Please provide the whole output. There should be an explanation why |
| 9 |
> > > there is the conflict. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
--->8 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> > I ran three commands: |
| 14 |
> > 1. emerge -epvK world > emerge.with-K |
| 15 |
> > 2. emerge -epvk world > emerge.with-k |
| 16 |
> > 3. emerge -epv world > emerge.no-Kk |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Those three files are attached. (I pasted the STDERR text into the |
| 19 |
> > first one because I couldn't remember the bashism for redirecting |
| 20 |
> > both output streams to a single file.) |
| 21 |
> > The slot conflict occurred in case 1. It did not occur in cases 2 and |
| 22 |
> > 3, but the package list was ordered differently. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> -K makes portage to use *only* pre-compiled binary packages, so I guess |
| 25 |
> there's the problem. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yes, and that's why I used it - portage is supposed to abort if no suitable |
| 28 |
package exists. I don't believe that's reliable either; I have some evidence |
| 29 |
that it sometimes carries on silently, ignoring the missing package. In any |
| 30 |
case, it shouldn't fail to find an actually present package, namely app- |
| 31 |
arch/bzip2-1.0.6-r3. And the only USE flags used by that package are "static" |
| 32 |
and "static-libs", neither of which is set. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> As you say you are not getting conflicting on later commands, the issue |
| 35 |
> is fixed for you, right? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No, I said the conflict occurs if I pass -K to portage, but not if I pass -k or |
| 38 |
don't pass either. It's repeatable. Sorry if that wasn't clear. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--->8 |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> > > What is the reason you run with backtrack=100 ? |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Actually it seems you are not setting anything as portage doesn't read |
| 45 |
> the OPTIONS variable [1]_. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> .. [1] |
| 48 |
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj%2Fportage.git&a=search&h=HEAD |
| 49 |
> &st=grep&s=OPTIONS |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
I don't follow. What is that page telling me? Besides, I don't believe that |
| 52 |
portage ignores OPTIONS passed to it, as it has accepted them many times |
| 53 |
before now. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
Regards |
| 57 |
Peter |
Archives