From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-154141-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43215138E66
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:17:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F05EE0A5F;
	Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:17:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.muc.de (colin.muc.de [193.149.48.1])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2180DE09FF
	for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:17:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 3605 invoked by uid 3782); 23 Feb 2014 16:17:16 -0000
Received: from acm.muc.de (pD951B638.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.182.56]) by
	colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP;
	Sun, 23 Feb 2014 17:17:15 +0100
Received: (qmail 5012 invoked by uid 1000); 23 Feb 2014 16:13:49 -0000
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 16:13:49 +0000
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] "Multiple package instances ....".  Help me
	understand this emerge error, please.
Message-ID: <20140223161349.GE3191@acm.acm>
References: <20140222211505.GB2639@acm.acm> <53091F57.1020106@gmail.com>
	<20140223121300.GC3191@acm.acm> <530A1227.1080300@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <530A1227.1080300@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan)
From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de
X-Archives-Salt: 1e4f3f5a-618c-439c-a050-dcc287faad34
X-Archives-Hash: c04d1e9e354f1479dae5461d10de6ba9

Hello, Alan.

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 05:22:15PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 23/02/2014 14:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> - are you sure that's an emerge failure and not just a convoluted info
> >> > message? Perhaps post the entire emerge output.
> > I tried it again without the -p, and got the same output.

> > I think this is a portage bug.  At the very least, it's poor
> > documentation.  I've reported the situation to bugs.gentoo.org, bug
> > #502236.

> > Thanks for the help.


> I don't think you have a portage bug as such (other than the sloppy
> bizarre output messages that are going into recent versions). I think we
> have bug in an ebuild, probably a maintainer that doesn't quite know how
> to navigate these new subslots waters,

OK.  This is a bit philosophical.  The way I see it is even if the main
bug is in the libpng ebuild, portage should have a way of protecting
itself against whatever is in the ebuild.  Currently it's wedged.

> One of the other replies suggested to unmerge libpng, emerge it back,
> and continue with emerge world, @preserved-rebuild, revdep-rebuild.

I'll wait a few days on the response to the bug report, just in case
somebody wants me to probe the current state.

> Chances are this will work around the issue and let you update
> everything. There *is* a chance some package(s) won't work with or won't
> compile with libpng[1] and you'll have to unwind things again. If this
> happens that will be valuable info to add the entry at bgo

> [1] This happened to me at least once before, I had to package.mask the
> latest version of the library until the tree sorted itself out. IIRC, it
> was libpng then too!

Surely package management shouldn't be this difficult?

> -- 
> Alan McKinnon
> alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).