| 1 |
On Sunday, 9 June 2019 21:16:52 BST Grant Taylor wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 6/9/19 1:38 PM, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> > While I see that point and quite often it is a good idea, it could |
| 4 |
> > also be that a fix is in the newer tree. It could even be that you |
| 5 |
> > caught the tree in the middle of some sort of change and you missed |
| 6 |
> > part of it. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > If it were me, I'd try everything you can but if you can't find a |
| 9 |
> > solution, I'd sync and see what happens. I've had a fresh sync fix |
| 10 |
> > issues on a few occasions. It's somewhat rare but can happen. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Just a thought. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Your logic makes sense. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I actually did end up reluctantly doing that at one point when I |
| 17 |
> couldn't access my ZFS pool, which contained /usr/portage. So, an |
| 18 |
> emerge --sync was run to populate /usr/portage while attempting to fix ZFS. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I abandoned that line of work after a couple of hours and ended up |
| 21 |
> restoring my ZFS module backup from a few days prior. That got me |
| 22 |
> access to my ZFS pool again. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> So, I'm disinclined to think that it's a bum copy of portage. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> But, it is still a valid question to to ask. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think Dale meant a later tree will contain updated packages, which may fix |
| 29 |
previous breakages and incompatibilities. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Hypothetically, a later VBox version requires some later version libs, which |
| 32 |
your current tree is missing. A re-sync will bring these in and your next |
| 33 |
emerge will fix the problems you were having. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Admittedly, I have experienced this more than once with various packages. |
| 36 |
Nevertheless, your module related problems are more obscure/involved. A dev |
| 37 |
should have a better idea as to what might be causing this. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Regards, |
| 41 |
Mick |
Archives