On Saturday 04 Feb 2017 01:33:24 Dale wrote: > Mick wrote: > > On Friday 03 Feb 2017 22:00:11 Dale wrote: > >> Jörg Schaible wrote: > >>> Dale wrote: > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>>> Portage lock? Sometimes, my brain does that too. lol > >>> > >>> Hehe. > >>> > >>>> I thought about it after I hit send but figured you would get the > >>>> thought, maybe you had one or the other in a mask/unmask file or > >>>> something that resulted in a conflict? I was sort of thinking it but > >>>> didn't type it in for some reason. Still, if you did the same command > >>>> I > >>>> posted, you would have seen the difference and thought on it. > >>>> Generally > >>>> if there is a difference like that, it's because of a local setting, or > >>>> a change in the tree due to different sync time, which would give the > >>>> idea of syncing again. > >>> > >>> Again the same issue on another box: > >>> > >>> =============== %< ================== > >>> $ equery l -p boost boost-build > >>> > >>> * Searching for boost ... > >>> > >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.55.0-r2:0/1.55.0 > >>> [IP-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.56.0-r1:0/1.56.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.58.0-r1:0/1.58.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.59.0:0/1.59.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.60.0:0/1.60.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0:0/1.61.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0-r1:0/1.61.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.62.0-r1:0/1.62.0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.63.0:0/1.63.0 > >>> > >>> * Searching for boost-build ... > >>> > >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0-r1:0 > >>> [IP-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.56.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.58.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.59.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.60.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.61.0:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.62.0-r1:0 > >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.63.0:0 > >>> =============== %< ================== > >>> > >>> Portage should be capable of an update. > >>> > >>>> Anyway, glad it is going. That's what matters. > >>> > >>> Yep, glad that I have a solution for it now. > >>> > >>> - Jörg > >> > >> That is really weird. That looks like exactly the same output I have > >> and mine updated just fine. At least, I don't recall having issues. I > >> read a couple other posts where people were having to run the same > >> command more than once to get portage to find a upgrade path. I wonder, > >> does emerge/portage/tree have a hiccup somewhere? Is this a bug that > >> hasn't quite had a finger put on it?? > >> > >> Weird. > >> > >> Dale > >> > >> :-) :-) > > > > From what I have seen when there are two stable versions of the same > > package, portage needs to be told which one to install. > > It should just update them. At least that is what it has always done > for me. Once they remove the keyword/mask for the packages, they should > be put in the upgrade list and portage just figure out which goes first, > if it can't go in parallel.
There should be no keyword/mask to remove. I am talking about a package which at this point in time has two unkeyworded and unmasked stable versions, like boost and boost-build above. > I don't recall having to tell emerge to do this other than my usual > emerge -uvaDN world command. I'll post an example next time I come across this (assuming I don't forget), as it happens every now and then here. The solution is to emerge -1av <package> as Neil has already posted. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
