| 1 |
Bo Ørsted Andresen escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 17 July 2007 00:46:08 maxim wexler wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> So, emerge portage results in one package being |
| 5 |
>> installed, portage, 61kb. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> emerge -u portage lines up 5 or 6 packages plus |
| 8 |
>> portage, 18Mb. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Went ahead and just did the one package, figuring |
| 11 |
>> later I could do an emerge -u for the rest of it. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> But this is what happens: |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -pv portage |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 20 |
>> [ebuild R ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.2.9 USE="-build |
| 21 |
>> -doc -epydoc (-selinux)" LINGUAS="-pl" 0 kB |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
>> Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 |
| 24 |
>> kB |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> What I expected. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> heathen@localhost ~ $ emerge -puv portage |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order: |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> Total: 0 packages, Size of downloads: 0 kB |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> So why doesn't it list the upgrade part now? |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> Because --update stops calculating deps when none of the specified targets |
| 40 |
> need updating. Only --deep checks the consistency of all dependencies even |
| 41 |
> when none of the targets need updating. You could argue it's a deficiency in |
| 42 |
> portage (although well-known).. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
It may sound a bit off-topic, but there is (at least) one very good |
| 47 |
reason for portage behaving this way, just think of the following scenario: |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
We have installed an application called APP (yes, very smart name) and |
| 50 |
this application depends on a dynamic library called LIB (yet smarter |
| 51 |
name). At installation APP was in version 1.0 and LIB in version 2.0. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Now think there's a new version available of LIB, let's say version 2.1, |
| 54 |
but the latest version of APP is still 1.0. If portage performed a deep |
| 55 |
update by default LIB would be rebuilt, but no APP, what would cause |
| 56 |
broken dependencies on APP (remember LIB is a dynamic library). However, |
| 57 |
is you don't update LIB unless you update also APP you will prevent this |
| 58 |
problem*. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Just my 0.02 ;-) |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
Abraham |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
* Needless to say, the problem will still arise if two applications |
| 66 |
depend on the same dynamic library, which is a common case, and only one |
| 67 |
of them is updated, but still it's an improvement. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
-- |
| 70 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives