[gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Andy Arbon]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

Please see this command and it's output:
- ----------------------------------
zoidberg ara # emerge -pU world
|>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating world dependencies ...done!
[ebuild     U ] sys-libs/db-4.0.14-r2 [3.2.9-r7]
[ebuild     U ] net-misc/dhcpcd-1.3.22_p4-r1 [1.3.22_p4]

Note this last line >|
[ebuild     U ] media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.4363-r3 [1.0.4496-r1]
- --------------------------------------------

Is this the correct behaviour? The nvidia-kernel ebuild was (most likely
) orignally installed from ~x86, though I normally stick to x86, but
even so, are there any situations where Portage should say it is going
to upgrade a package (not downgrade) to an ebuild with a lower version
number as indicated above?

Thanks,

Andy


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/XLvoX3TTUvZURBERAge/AJ9ncg2Qvc1jMvNPH+hthTOWegg7nwCfZMq1
VmSTv5bM6VFeQR97CyJ/QRA=
=8XqD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Marius Mauch]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]

On 09/08/03  Andy Arbon wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please see this command and it's output:
> - ----------------------------------
> zoidberg ara # emerge -pU world
> |>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.
> 
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
> 
> Calculating world dependencies ...done!
> [ebuild     U ] sys-libs/db-4.0.14-r2 [3.2.9-r7]
> [ebuild     U ] net-misc/dhcpcd-1.3.22_p4-r1 [1.3.22_p4]
> 
> Note this last line >|
> [ebuild     U ] media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.4363-r3 [1.0.4496-r1]
> - --------------------------------------------
> 
> Is this the correct behaviour? The nvidia-kernel ebuild was (most
> likely) orignally installed from ~x86, though I normally stick to x86,
> but even so, are there any situations where Portage should say it is
> going to upgrade a package (not downgrade) to an ebuild with a lower
> version number as indicated above?

Did you change kernels after installing nvidia-kernel? If yes it is a
SLOT change and portage displays it as a upgrade. There are some patches
in bugzilla to display these different from upgrades, I hope one of them
gets incorporated into portage soon (SLOTs have more problems, but these
need time).

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:11:34 +0200
Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:

> 
> Did you change kernels after installing nvidia-kernel? If yes it is a
> SLOT change and portage displays it as a upgrade. 

Does Portage supports multiple slots for a same package-version? I
thought it didn't.

-- 
TGL.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 20:27, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:11:34 +0200
> Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Did you change kernels after installing nvidia-kernel? If yes it is a
> > SLOT change and portage displays it as a upgrade. 
> 
> Does Portage supports multiple slots for a same package-version? I
> thought it didn't.

Not yet, but the fact that SLOT do change cause the difference in
display.


-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Alan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1224 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:44:56PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 20:27, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:11:34 +0200
> > Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Did you change kernels after installing nvidia-kernel? If yes it is a
> > > SLOT change and portage displays it as a upgrade. 
> > 
> > Does Portage supports multiple slots for a same package-version? I
> > thought it didn't.
> 
> Not yet, but the fact that SLOT do change cause the difference in
> display.

It could also be that the version of the package you currently have in
doesn't exist anymore, and portage is trying to install the next
available version.  I've had this when I install an ebuild by hand of a
higher version number (or in ~86) and that version is later on deleted
and replaced with $version+1, making portage try to downgrade me even
though I'm telling it to only upgrade.

alan


-- 
Alan <alan@ufies.org> - http://arcterex.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain 
climbing. All the others are mere games."                -- Hemingway

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Is this a bug in portage?

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1515 bytes --]

On 08/09/2003 at 11:57:18(-0700), Alan used 1.6K just to say:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 08:44:56PM +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 20:27, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:11:34 +0200
> > > Marius Mauch <genone@genone.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Did you change kernels after installing nvidia-kernel? If yes it is a
> > > > SLOT change and portage displays it as a upgrade. 
> > > 
> > > Does Portage supports multiple slots for a same package-version? I
> > > thought it didn't.
> > 
> > Not yet, but the fact that SLOT do change cause the difference in
> > display.
> 
> It could also be that the version of the package you currently have in
> doesn't exist anymore, and portage is trying to install the next
> available version.  I've had this when I install an ebuild by hand of a
> higher version number (or in ~86) and that version is later on deleted
> and replaced with $version+1, making portage try to downgrade me even
> though I'm telling it to only upgrade.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22579

Same problem and it clearly shows that nothing suggested until now is the cause
for the wrong output.

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () Lighten up, while you still can, Don't even  ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    () try to understand, Just find a place to make ()
()  +81(90)6266-1163   () your stand, And take it easy. -- The Eagles, ()
() ------------------- () "Take It Easy"                               ()

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]