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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to