Odd portage quirk

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Odd portage quirk

Peter Humphrey-3
Hello list,

This box acts as an emerge server for a 32-bit Atom. So I NFS-mount the Atom's
portage tree in a 32-bit chroot, build the packages it needs and then emerge
the packages on the Atom.

This morning I found something odd: the Atom wanted to emerge perl 5.24, even
though 5.26 was already present, so I got a long list of clashes. This is the
emerge command on the Atom:

emerge -auDvUK --jobs=2 --load-average=4 --changed-use --changed-deps \
            --with-bdeps=y --nospinner --keep-going world

The solution was to delete the 5.24 package left over from an earlier emerge.
All was then well.

It looks as though the -K switch caused portage to want to emerge the package
even though it wasn't indicated by the update. Is it supposed to do that?

--
Regards,
Peter.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Odd portage quirk

Peter Humphrey-3
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 09:50:58 GMT I wrote:

> This morning I found something odd: the Atom wanted to emerge perl 5.24,
> even though 5.26 was already present, so I got a long list of clashes.

I forgot to say that the emerge host had no trouble with this daily update;
just the client Atom box.

--
Regards,
Peter.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Odd portage quirk

Neil Bothwick
In reply to this post by Peter Humphrey-3
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:50:58 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> This box acts as an emerge server for a 32-bit Atom. So I NFS-mount the
> Atom's portage tree in a 32-bit chroot, build the packages it needs and
> then emerge the packages on the Atom.
>
> This morning I found something odd: the Atom wanted to emerge perl
> 5.24, even though 5.26 was already present, so I got a long list of
> clashes. This is the emerge command on the Atom:
>
> emerge -auDvUK --jobs=2 --load-average=4 --changed-use --changed-deps \
>             --with-bdeps=y --nospinner --keep-going world
>
> The solution was to delete the 5.24 package left over from an earlier
> emerge. All was then well.
>
> It looks as though the -K switch caused portage to want to emerge the
> package even though it wasn't indicated by the update. Is it supposed
> to do that?
Was there a suitable package for 5.26 in $PKGDIR? The -K switch forces
portage to use a package, unlike -k, so if the exact 5.26 version you had
installed had been removed from the tree in favour of an updated/fixed
version, portage would have to downgrade if you hadn't built the new
package.


--
Neil Bothwick

Weird enough for government work.

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Odd portage quirk

Peter Humphrey-3
On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 10:15:22 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 09:50:58 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > This box acts as an emerge server for a 32-bit Atom. So I NFS-mount the
> > Atom's portage tree in a 32-bit chroot, build the packages it needs and
> > then emerge the packages on the Atom.
> >
> > This morning I found something odd: the Atom wanted to emerge perl
> > 5.24, even though 5.26 was already present, so I got a long list of
> > clashes. This is the emerge command on the Atom:
> >
> > emerge -auDvUK --jobs=2 --load-average=4 --changed-use --changed-deps \
> >
> >             --with-bdeps=y --nospinner --keep-going world
> >
> > The solution was to delete the 5.24 package left over from an earlier
> > emerge. All was then well.
> >
> > It looks as though the -K switch caused portage to want to emerge the
> > package even though it wasn't indicated by the update. Is it supposed
> > to do that?
>
> Was there a suitable package for 5.26 in $PKGDIR? The -K switch forces
> portage to use a package, unlike -k, so if the exact 5.26 version you had
> installed had been removed from the tree in favour of an updated/fixed
> version, portage would have to downgrade if you hadn't built the new
> package.

No, the 5.26 package was there alongside the 5.24, and portage didn't want to
downgrade. Once I'd removed the 5.24 package portage was no longer confused.

I have checked that the host and client have identical world and package.*
files. Also make.conf, except for things like --jobs and buildpkg.

--
Regards,
Peter.