1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> I'm not sure what to make of this. portage lists the packages |
3 |
> correctly and has the SLOTs correct, but emerge seems to be launched |
4 |
> incorrectly. It's all very odd, and looks like bug-report material. To |
5 |
> be useful you are going to need data. Could you quickpkg the current |
6 |
> and previous versions of both SLOTs? That will make it easy to upgrade |
7 |
> and downgrade packages, then run emerge world over and over to see |
8 |
> what it does without it taking 40 minutes each time. |
9 |
|
10 |
Well, here is this: |
11 |
|
12 |
[-P-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.11.63:0 |
13 |
[-P-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha173:0 |
14 |
[IP-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha174:0 |
15 |
|
16 |
This is the portage update info. I use genlop -t to do this. I know |
17 |
there is a better way but can't remember the command. lol I think it |
18 |
was one of the q thingys. |
19 |
|
20 |
Fri Apr 5 12:49:29 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha171 |
21 |
merge time: 27 seconds. |
22 |
|
23 |
Sat Apr 6 11:00:10 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha171 |
24 |
merge time: 26 seconds. |
25 |
|
26 |
Mon Apr 15 08:33:49 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha173 |
27 |
merge time: 31 seconds. |
28 |
|
29 |
Mon May 6 22:36:15 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha174 |
30 |
merge time: 30 seconds. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Based on that, I would say it started about the time *173 hit. I can't |
34 |
go back to the *171 since it is no longer in the tree. |
35 |
|
36 |
I'm not sure I know enough about debugging to help much but it sure is |
37 |
weird. Should have known something weird like this would hit me. :/ |
38 |
|
39 |
I'm sort of pretty active on this thing right now since I do some |
40 |
volunteer mod work on a site. I'd rather not get myself to a spot where |
41 |
my rig aini't working. I'm not even doing upgrades like I used to. |
42 |
Well, not as often anyway. I just have to plan stuff to make sure I'm |
43 |
up and running. |
44 |
|
45 |
I checked for roach reports and didn't see this reported anywhere. I |
46 |
wonder if a USE flag is triggering this? This is interesting: |
47 |
|
48 |
root@fireball / # emerge -pv =sys-devel/gcc-4.4.7 =sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4 |
49 |
=sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3 |
50 |
|
51 |
These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
52 |
|
53 |
Calculating dependencies... done! |
54 |
[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3:4.6 USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) |
55 |
nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx* -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran* -gcj |
56 |
-graphite (-hardened) (-libssp) -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ |
57 |
-objc-gc {-test} -vanilla" 24 kB |
58 |
[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.7:4.4 USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) |
59 |
nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran -gcj |
60 |
(-hardened) (-libssp) -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc |
61 |
{-test} -vanilla (-graphite%)" 0 kB |
62 |
[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4:4.5 USE="gtk mudflap (multilib) |
63 |
nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran -gcj |
64 |
(-hardened) (-libssp) -lto -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ |
65 |
-objc-gc {-test} -vanilla" 0 kB |
66 |
|
67 |
Total: 3 packages (3 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 24 kB |
68 |
|
69 |
!!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled |
70 |
!!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: |
71 |
|
72 |
sys-devel/gcc:4.6 |
73 |
|
74 |
(sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by |
75 |
(no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot) |
76 |
|
77 |
(sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3::gentoo, installed) pulled in by |
78 |
sys-devel/gcc[fortran,openmp?] required by |
79 |
(virtual/fortran-0::gentoo, installed) |
80 |
>=sys-devel/gcc-4.2[cxx] required by |
81 |
(sci-geosciences/googleearth-6.2.2.6613::gentoo, installed) |
82 |
|
83 |
|
84 |
!!! Enabling --newuse and --update might solve this conflict. |
85 |
!!! If not, it might help emerge to give a more specific suggestion. |
86 |
|
87 |
root@fireball / # |
88 |
|
89 |
I may need to make sense of this now. May not be the problem but |
90 |
still. I don't have anything related to gcc in package.use either. I'm |
91 |
not sure about the USE flag being changed on two but not the other. |
92 |
When I logoff as mod, I'm going to try to recompile that older version. |
93 |
|
94 |
Thoughts? Could that be the cause? |
95 |
|
96 |
Dale |
97 |
|
98 |
:-) :-) |
99 |
|
100 |
-- |
101 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |