Mailing List Archive: New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2

New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2

Oct 21, 2004, 5:56 PM

Post #1 of 5 (521 views)

I merged this tonight on x86 system. All of a sudden it decides that some
items block each other:

[blocks B ] app-text/tetex (from pkg app-text/ptex-3.1.3)
[blocks B ] x11-themes/gtk-engines-thinice (from pkg
x11-themes/gnome-themes-2.6.2)
[blocks B ] app-text/ptex (from pkg app-text/tetex-2.0.2-r3)

qpkg -I -q ptext shows

app-text/ptex-3.1.3 *
DEPENDED ON BY:
ptex-3.1.3
tetex-2.0.2-r3
xdvik-22.40y-r2

while qpkg -i q tetex shows

app-text/tetex-2.0.2-r3 *
DEPENDED ON BY:
ptex-3.1.3
tetex-2.0.2-r3
xdvik-22.40y-r2

Huh?? Maybe I'm slow tonight but why does portage suddenly decide these
packages block each other - I merged last night with the previous version
of portage and had no problems

--
Brett I. Holcomb

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2 [ In reply to ]

carpaski at twobit

Oct 21, 2004, 6:45 PM

Post #2 of 5 (515 views)

Permalink

> Huh?? Maybe I'm slow tonight but why does portage suddenly decide these
> packages block each other - I merged last night with the previous version
> of portage and had no problems

I like to call those "bug fixes".

--NJ

Re: New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2 [ In reply to ]

brettholcomb at charter

Oct 21, 2004, 7:03 PM

Post #3 of 5 (522 views)

Permalink

What bug are they fixing <G>? Why were these blocks not flagged before?

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Nicholas Jones wrote:

>> Huh?? Maybe I'm slow tonight but why does portage suddenly decide these
>> packages block each other - I merged last night with the previous version
>> of portage and had no problems
>
> I like to call those "bug fixes".
>
> --NJ
>
>

--
Brett I. Holcomb

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2 [ In reply to ]

jstubbs at gentoo

Oct 22, 2004, 6:26 AM

Post #4 of 5 (517 views)

Permalink

On Friday 22 October 2004 11:03, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> What bug are they fixing <G>? Why were these blocks not flagged before?

The blocks were not flagged because portage-2.0.50 missed them. The
explanation to that would take at least 1000 words, but the code itself would
probably be just as "easy" (if not easier) to understand. Anyway, be glad
it's fixed. :)

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

P.S. There's still a bug in 2.0.51-r2 where it can miss blockers in very
specific circumstances. I don't know why yet, but have been told how to
reproduce it so will fix soon.

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: Re: New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2 [ In reply to ]

brettholcomb at charter

Oct 22, 2004, 8:25 AM

Post #5 of 5 (521 views)

Permalink

Okay. I don't need a 1000 word explanation <G>. I'm glad it's fixed.

So to fix it I suppose I find out who depends on these two, unmerge them, run revdep-rebuild -p and see what happens? Then if necessary merge the app back that uses them?

>
> From: Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org>
> Date: 2004/10/22 Fri PM 01:26:12 GMT
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] New Portage Portage 2.0.51-r2
>
> On Friday 22 October 2004 11:03, Brett I. Holcomb wrote:
> > What bug are they fixing <G>? Why were these blocks not flagged before?
>
> The blocks were not flagged because portage-2.0.50 missed them. The
> explanation to that would take at least 1000 words, but the code itself would
> probably be just as "easy" (if not easier) to understand. Anyway, be glad
> it's fixed. :)
>
> Regards,
> Jason Stubbs
>
> P.S. There's still a bug in 2.0.51-r2 where it can miss blockers in very
> specific circumstances. I don't know why yet, but have been told how to
> reproduce it so will fix soon.
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list