| 1 |
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:15:22 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:50:58 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This box acts as an emerge server for a 32-bit Atom. So I NFS-mount the |
| 4 |
> > Atom's portage tree in a 32-bit chroot, build the packages it needs and |
| 5 |
> > then emerge the packages on the Atom. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > This morning I found something odd: the Atom wanted to emerge perl |
| 8 |
> > 5.24, even though 5.26 was already present, so I got a long list of |
| 9 |
> > clashes. This is the emerge command on the Atom: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > emerge -auDvUK --jobs=2 --load-average=4 --changed-use --changed-deps \ |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > --with-bdeps=y --nospinner --keep-going world |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > The solution was to delete the 5.24 package left over from an earlier |
| 16 |
> > emerge. All was then well. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > It looks as though the -K switch caused portage to want to emerge the |
| 19 |
> > package even though it wasn't indicated by the update. Is it supposed |
| 20 |
> > to do that? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Was there a suitable package for 5.26 in $PKGDIR? The -K switch forces |
| 23 |
> portage to use a package, unlike -k, so if the exact 5.26 version you had |
| 24 |
> installed had been removed from the tree in favour of an updated/fixed |
| 25 |
> version, portage would have to downgrade if you hadn't built the new |
| 26 |
> package. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
No, the 5.26 package was there alongside the 5.24, and portage didn't want to |
| 29 |
downgrade. Once I'd removed the 5.24 package portage was no longer confused. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I have checked that the host and client have identical world and package.* |
| 32 |
files. Also make.conf, except for things like --jobs and buildpkg. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Regards, |
| 36 |
Peter. |
Archives