| 1 |
On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Hi there, |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 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. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the "an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it" message. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Now: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> # emerge -up world |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 16 |
> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> # emerge -up system |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 23 |
> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> # emerge -up portage |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 30 |
> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE="less%*" |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> # |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> 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. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: |
| 39 |
> Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? |
| 40 |
> Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. |
| 43 |
> Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Firstly, regarding the subject line. Portage isn't in world. It's in |
| 47 |
the system set. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Secondly, I really don't understand the question. You are in |
| 50 |
x86/stable, ok I understand that... Even in stable software gets |
| 51 |
updated. Portage is a piece of software. There is an update. There's |
| 52 |
nothing "unusual" about that. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
What exactly is the question? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
You could choose to not upgrade portage (though I don't know why you |
| 57 |
would do that), but that would mean you won't receive any bug fixes it |
| 58 |
may have, or take advantage of any new features it introduces. Or |
| 59 |
things may simply not work :D |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
What exactly are you afraid of? How long have you been using Gentoo |
| 62 |
that you've never had to upgrade portage before? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-a |
Archives