| 1 |
On 23/02/2014 14:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 2 |
>> - are you sure that's an emerge failure and not just a convoluted info |
| 3 |
>> > message? Perhaps post the entire emerge output. |
| 4 |
> I tried it again without the -p, and got the same output. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think this is a portage bug. At the very least, it's poor |
| 7 |
> documentation. I've reported the situation to bugs.gentoo.org, bug |
| 8 |
> #502236. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Thanks for the help. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I don't think you have a portage bug as such (other than the sloppy |
| 14 |
bizarre output messages that are going into recent versions). I think we |
| 15 |
have bug in an ebuild, probably a maintainer that doesn't quite know how |
| 16 |
to navigate these new subslots waters, |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
One of the other replies suggested to unmerge libpng, emerge it back, |
| 20 |
and continue with emerge world, @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Chances are this will work around the issue and let you update |
| 23 |
everything. There *is* a chance some package(s) won't work with or won't |
| 24 |
compile with libpng[1] and you'll have to unwind things again. If this |
| 25 |
happens that will be valuable info to add the entry at bgo |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[1] This happened to me at least once before, I had to package.mask the |
| 28 |
latest version of the library until the tree sorted itself out. IIRC, it |
| 29 |
was libpng then too! |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives