[gentoo-portage-dev] %n in writable segment detected ??

[gentoo-portage-dev] %n in writable segment detected ??

[Duncan]

What's the below "%n in writable segment detected" bit all about?  Should 
I worry about it?  I saw it once before but have no clue whether it's 
portage/emerge itself outputting it (I would guess yes, QA warning??), or 
one of the build processes.

I'm guessing it's a warning from portage's newer parallel jobs processing 
that you guys may be interested in (a bug to trace down?  file it??  any 
other info beyond the below that would be useful?  how to duplicate? 
etc.) but don't know and obviously haven't the foggiest how serious it 
is.  But it didn't cause anything to barf, so I figured it couldn't be 
too bad.  But it's still worrying not knowing what it is, when it's 
obviously important enough to break the parallel jobs enforced 
backgrounding.

~amd64/2008.0/no-multilib, portage-2.2_rc25 (now, previously with a 
different _rc)

Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]
>>> Verifying ebuild manifests
>>> Starting parallel fetch
>>> Emerging (1 of 5) sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
>>> Emerging (2 of 5) sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
>>> Installing sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
>>> Installing sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
>>> Emerging (3 of 5) sys-fs/udev-140
>>> Emerging (4 of 5) sys-apps/coreutils-7.1
>>> Jobs: 2 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 4.81, 3.95, 
2.11*** %n in writable segment detected ***

Thanks!

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: %n in writable segment detected ??

[Duncan]

Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> posted pan.2009.03.14.16.53.52@cox.net,
excerpted below, on  Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:53:52 +0000:

> What's the below "%n in writable segment detected" bit all about?

Here's some more strange output, from the last line above but here shown 
as it was when portage finished.  These sort of make sense, but AFAIK 
should be in the individual emerge logs and spit out at the end with 
them, not jumbled into the parallel jobs stuff.  That's enough to file a 
bug on, but I don't know whether it's the same one as above or unrelated, 
so thought I'd throw it in here first and ask since I have the thread 
open already.

>>> Jobs: 2 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 4.81, 3.95, 
2.11*** %n in writable segment detected ***
>>> Installing sys-fs/udev-140
>>> Installing sys-apps/coreutils-7.1
>>> Emerging (5 of 5) sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2
>>> Jobs: 4 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 1.98, 4.24, 
3.34QA: Static ELF: /tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/
build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/elf/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2: /tmp/
portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-
gnu-nptl/elf/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 --library-path /tmp/portage/sys-libs/
glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl:/tmp/
portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-
gnu-nptl/math:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-
amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/elf:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/
glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/dlfcn:/
tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-
linux-gnu-nptl/nss:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/
build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/nis:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/
glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/rt:/tmp/
portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-
gnu-nptl/resolv:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-
amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/crypt:/tmp/portage/sys-libs/
glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/nptl /
tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-
linux-gnu-nptl/posix/getconf _POSIX_V6_WIDTH_RESTRICTED_ENVS
>>> Jobs: 4 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 1.87, 3.90, 
3.26QA: Static ELF: /tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/
build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/elf/ldconfig: /tmp/portage/sys-libs/
glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/work/build-amd64-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-nptl/elf/
ldconfig -r /tmp/portage/sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2/image/ /lib64 /
usr/lib64
>>> Installing sys-libs/glibc-2.9_p20081201-r2
>>> Jobs: 5 of 5 complete                           Load avg: 1.52, 3.62, 
3.19

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] %n in writable segment detected ??

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 248 bytes --]

On Saturday 14 March 2009 12:53:52 Duncan wrote:
> What's the below "%n in writable segment detected" bit all about?

it has nothing to do with portage and it can be ignored.  if you want more 
info, just search bugzilla and/or google.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: %n in writable segment detected ??

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1794 bytes --]

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:53:52 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

> What's the below "%n in writable segment detected" bit all about?
> Should I worry about it?  I saw it once before but have no clue
> whether it's portage/emerge itself outputting it (I would guess yes,
> QA warning??), or one of the build processes.
> 
> I'm guessing it's a warning from portage's newer parallel jobs
> processing that you guys may be interested in (a bug to trace down?
> file it??  any other info beyond the below that would be useful?  how
> to duplicate? etc.) but don't know and obviously haven't the foggiest
> how serious it is.  But it didn't cause anything to barf, so I
> figured it couldn't be too bad.  But it's still worrying not knowing
> what it is, when it's obviously important enough to break the
> parallel jobs enforced backgrounding.
> 
> ~amd64/2008.0/no-multilib, portage-2.2_rc25 (now, previously with a 
> different _rc)
> 
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]
> >>> Verifying ebuild manifests
> >>> Starting parallel fetch
> >>> Emerging (1 of 5) sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
> >>> Emerging (2 of 5) sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
> >>> Installing sys-devel/gnuconfig-20090203
> >>> Installing sys-apps/sandbox-1.6
> >>> Emerging (3 of 5) sys-fs/udev-140
> >>> Emerging (4 of 5) sys-apps/coreutils-7.1
> >>> Jobs: 2 of 5 complete, 1 running                Load avg: 4.81,
> >>> 3.95, 
> 2.11*** %n in writable segment detected ***
> 
> Thanks!

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257279

-- 
gcc-porting,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257279
by design, by neglect treecleaner,                              for a
fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD
C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: %n in writable segment detected ??

[Duncan]

Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> posted
20090314230541.4de94192@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca, excerpted below, on  Sat, 14
Mar 2009 23:05:41 -0600:

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257279

So it's sent directly to the terminal and can't be caught and redirected 
to the appropriate log when the configure is running in the background.  
That sucks!

Thanks.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman