emerge world broken?

Posted Sep 20, 2004 21:09 UTC (Mon) by mikachu (guest, #5333)
In reply to: emerge world broken? by mikachu
Parent article: Gentoo Weekly Newsletter 20 September 2004

forgot to mention, this is about portage-2.0.51_rc1

emerge world broken?

Posted Sep 21, 2004 8:44 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

I'm not having the problem, altho I switched to the 2.0.51 series back
with about pre20, and updated from there to pre23, before updating to rc1.
Also, I'm on AMD64 altho that really shouldn't affect portage, and run an
all ~amd64 system, save for a few things I upgrade early that are still -*
masked. (Such as ..51 was when I upgraded, but I read the dev list and
they said it was about to go stable and they needed testers then, so I
tested. It also incorporated an etc-update fix I bugged and posted the
fix for, so tho I had installed the fix manually for ..50, I wanted to
upgrade to one including it. Also, the xorg 6.7.99 betas for 6.8.0, and
occasionally I'll keep a previously ~amd64 testing ebuild, like glibc or
binutils, when it gets arch removed due to some bug I don't see, such as
the latest glibc withdrawal due to kernel 2.4 issues, when 2.4 has been
depreciated on amd64 for some time.) Anyway, with all that, it's possible
I'm not seeing it because I had an earlier version installed or because I
normally run ~amd64 or some other similar difference.

I'd suggest verifying whether your problem has been bugged or not,
however, and bugging it if not. That's the sort of info they need right
now. Even if it happens to be something strange with your system, getting
that sort of strange problem bugged gives them another datapoint if
someone else ends up with it as well, if /nothing/ else. However, /do/ be
sure and point out anything you are running like the few remasked things I
run on occasion, as that /could/ be why. It's still a datapoint and
therefore valuable info to have at this point, tho, so don't let that stop
you bugging it.

FWIW, yes, I've had a number of ebuilds bail, and yes, I do use the ebuild
command to pick up again, so yes, I've tested it, and yes, it does work,
here. Same with the downgrade, tho I seldom let it do a downgrade the
first time it wants to. I check out /why/ it wants to downgrade, first,
why the keyword was removed, and /then/ decide if I want to let it do so
or put the ebuild in my overlay with ~arch reinserted so it doesn't
downgrade. Either way, it does seem to work, here, as I just downgraded
from gcc-3.4.2 back to 3.4.1, when it was masked, as I /was/ having issues
with 3.4.2 myself, and the downgrade worked then.

(BTW, yes, I /know/ this is a bit wordy, but.. <g>)

Duncan