Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: "Bo Ørsted Andresen" <bo.andresen@××××.dk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Emerge -v portage performs sneak attack on emacs-cvs
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2007 09:34:45
Message-Id: 200706011129.19001.bo.andresen@zlin.dk
In Reply to: [gentoo-user] Emerge -v portage performs sneak attack on emacs-cvs by reader@newsguy.com
1 On Friday 01 June 2007 02:55:41 reader@×××××××.com wrote:
2 > The subject line is half joke... but I just did an sync and then
3 > emerged portage as suggested. After the emerge of portage, emerge
4 > process went on and uninstaqlled a couple of versions of emacs-cvs.
5 >
6 > As you can see in the command output below... there was no hint of
7 > what was coming:
8 >
9 > ================
10 > root # emerge -v portage
11 [SNIP]
12 > The tail of emerge.log shows what happened at the end:
13 [SNIP]
14 > 1180658026: >>> AUTOCLEAN: sys-apps/portage
15 > 1180658026: === Unmerging... (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.4)
16 > 1180658030: >>> unmerge success: sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.4
17 > 1180658030: === (1 of 1) Post-Build Cleaning
18 > (sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.9::/usr/portage/sys-apps/portage/portage-2.1.2.9.eb
19 >uild) 1180658030: ::: completed emerge (1 of 1) sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.9 to
20 > / 1180658030: *** Finished. Cleaning up...
21 > 1180658031: === Unmerging... (app-editors/emacs-cvs-22.0.92)
22 > 1180658078: >>> unmerge success: app-editors/emacs-cvs-22.0.92
23 > 1180658078: === Unmerging... (app-editors/emacs-cvs-22.0.95-r1)
24 > 1180658115: >>> unmerge success: app-editors/emacs-cvs-22.0.95-r1
25 > 1180658115: *** exiting successfully.
26 > 1180658115: *** terminating.
27
28 This happens when you have more than one version of a package in the same SLOT
29 which means your system was in an illegal state. It should have left one
30 version still in that SLOT (namely the one with the highest COUNTER which is
31 the one that was emerged last and thus it's files won't have been removed).
32
33 --
34 Bo Andresen

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies