1 |
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:04 PM Jack <ostroffjh@×××××××××××××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The basic idea is to upgrade as few packages at a time as possible - but |
4 |
> you can't do just one because of these conflicts. |
5 |
|
6 |
If you get stuck in a really bad dependency mess that is sometimes necessary. |
7 |
|
8 |
However, I'd first suggest just trying to update everything: |
9 |
emerge -auDv --changed-use --keep-going --with-bdeps=y --changed-deps |
10 |
--backtrack=100 @world |
11 |
|
12 |
It is quite possible that this will just be a complete mess since such |
13 |
a long time has passed. |
14 |
|
15 |
If so I would try to do just those conflicts necessary to get portage |
16 |
updated to start. Or maybe try the above command but using @system |
17 |
instead of @world. |
18 |
|
19 |
However, nobody should be under the impression that it is normal when |
20 |
updating to have to routinely update packages one at a time manually |
21 |
trying to work through conflicts. As long as all the conflicting |
22 |
packages are within the scope of an update command, portage should |
23 |
generally be able to figure out how to handle this. |
24 |
|
25 |
Often when it can't it is the result of heavy-handed user |
26 |
configuration (USE=-* and so on). I'm not saying that users can't do |
27 |
that if they want, but right now portage doesn't have any concept of |
28 |
soft use dependencies so anytime you stick something in a config file |
29 |
portage will treat it as the gospel even if one small change to your |
30 |
configuration will unblock a large logjam of conflicts. |
31 |
|
32 |
In an ideal world there would be some kind of prioritization of these |
33 |
configs so that you could have softer preferences and harder ones, and |
34 |
portage would just make a best effort to respect soft preferences |
35 |
without micromanagement. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Rich |