| 1 |
On 08/15/2016 06:02 PM, james wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I brought this up before. No need for argument, just test it out |
| 5 |
> for yourself. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Multiple times (over the last few weeks) I have run 'emerge -uDNvp @world' and there are issues to deal with manually. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> For example 'One or more updates/rebuilds have been skipped due to a dependency conflict', type of fudd and other types of fudd is the result, not all the time, but maybe 50% of the time. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Now, routinely, all I do is immediately issue this command |
| 13 |
> 'emerge -uDt @world' and go have a coffee. An AMD 8 core, 32G workstation does it's thang, leaving me a with just a smile after the work is complete. No other actions, nadda, ziltch. Immediately, I then run 'emerge -uDNvp world' (again, and routinely I get:: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> "These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 KiB" |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Just try it for yourself. It's like clockwork now. Smooth. I have over 1500 packages installed on a mostly stable but hacked out /usr/local/portage/ and maybe 10% of the packages, that are much newer, but portage is sweet, sweet, sweet now. There is inherent magic now, but, |
| 23 |
> I do not have time to ferret it out. Sure I can dive in, manually, |
| 24 |
> and I have done this to fix things, but, 'emerge -uDt @world' fixes things, automagically; dozens of times as I update 3 or 4 times a week. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I don't know exactly what's going on but I think something is wrong so it's not |
| 29 |
so sweet. I think you got a conflict that's not being resolved and not being pulled |
| 30 |
by the second command. What happends if you add --with-bdeps=y --backtrack=30? Also |
| 31 |
try without the -p (I think it runs more code like autounmask etc so it may cause |
| 32 |
the extra output). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Is clang/llvm stuff still popping up on the list of skipped packages? I remember a |
| 35 |
similar conflict around the time of your first post and it turned out that the latest |
| 36 |
stable clang blocks the latest stable libclc. So the tree is (still) broken. For most |
| 37 |
users it's not a problem because portage pulls the right version of clang but if you |
| 38 |
have clang on your world file it updates it to the latest and you get those conflicts. |
| 39 |
I fixed it by masking all versions of clang >3.6 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Fernando Rodriguez |
Archives