1 |
On 1/10/10, Li <fender0107401@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> Hi all: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I am trying emerge -e world, when the portage emerge coreutils, I got this |
5 |
> massage: |
6 |
> |
7 |
>>>> Failed to emerge sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1, Log file: |
8 |
> |
9 |
>>>> '/var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1/temp/build.log' |
10 |
> |
11 |
> * Messages for package sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1: |
12 |
> |
13 |
> * Failed Patch: 001_all_coreutils-gen-progress-bar.patch ! |
14 |
> * ( |
15 |
> * |
16 |
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1/work/patch/001_all_coreutils-gen-progress-bar.patch |
17 |
> * ) |
18 |
> * |
19 |
> * Include in your bugreport the contents of: |
20 |
> * |
21 |
> * |
22 |
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1/temp/001_all_coreutils-gen-progress-bar.patch.out |
23 |
> * |
24 |
> * ERROR: sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1 failed. |
25 |
> * Call stack: |
26 |
> * ebuild.sh, line 49: Called src_unpack |
27 |
> * environment, line 2657: Called epatch |
28 |
> * environment, line 1248: Called die |
29 |
> * The specific snippet of code: |
30 |
> * die "Failed Patch: ${patchname}!"; |
31 |
> * The die message: |
32 |
> * Failed Patch: |
33 |
> * 001_all_coreutils-gen-progress-bar.patch! |
34 |
> * |
35 |
> * If you need support, post the topmost build error, |
36 |
> * and the call stack if relevant. |
37 |
> * A complete build log is located at |
38 |
> * '/var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1/temp/build.log'. |
39 |
> * The ebuild environment file is located at |
40 |
> * '/var/tmp/portage/sys-apps/coreutils-7.5-r1/temp/environment'. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> system information: |
43 |
> |
44 |
>> uname -a |
45 |
> Linux PC-686 2.6.31-gentoo-r6 #16 SMP PREEMPT Wed Jan 6 23:55:37 CST |
46 |
> 2010 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5200+ AuthenticAMD |
47 |
> GNU/Linux |
48 |
|
49 |
Re-sync portage tree and try again. |
50 |
|
51 |
eutils.eclass (where epatch is defined) has been changed several times |
52 |
in the last 24 hours. The last change seems to fix something which |
53 |
might be the direct cause of your problem (an EPATCH_EXCLUDES handling |
54 |
bugfix, as according to the ebuild that 001_all_* patch is supposed to |
55 |
be excluded?). |
56 |
|
57 |
-- |
58 |
Arttu V. |