From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43215138E66 for ; 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 ; 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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 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).