From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68E1A13933E for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 10:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B5CBE0825; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 10:49:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm1-x32b.google.com (mail-wm1-x32b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8706E0801 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 10:49:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-x32b.google.com with SMTP id o33-20020a05600c5121b02901e360c98c08so10679578wms.5 for ; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 03:49:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=877ZIOxO+eEUddkpu15aFNfJsqUvaG3F612qtD/OPnE=; b=pDTrl++M2SnQwZ+86cbU7jP9xdv/59DbUSzQsoPQ9lBIu/p37OSx4d0g8tt70cn+6q cl77WjlwKAm8uM3hyuK2OEWlQPdIMLVfqK3d2+xNe1jefOIbZynKV/NA3twryCtN4pe3 Mdy7EZzM40ZKNSLD6sFQzsXHa4VNpXFxCmXYLrBMIrAQzva+5nvpbAxN4CEAUEE9sVu4 sLFN3R4xjGUIYUetXpl+SsPJGxhIGlzoQ0Pks+4NXlwwQSnbmXikWTw/aMN7ry9AOPEJ y80NGHWb1hLZW1BqAXdDhulroqEshGKvIfh+Zh9Xpd4nTZh+xfvwfN/kQeWbQHzROVEp 6m2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=877ZIOxO+eEUddkpu15aFNfJsqUvaG3F612qtD/OPnE=; b=Qr4vHviYiJ6ZfmLlmwVXY4HnMkOF0XzcxECi6vUZjjLi2t/wVVFxNxbLy6V0TL91qY dk5McSbnK6rC5oAVS5TTZhNIhh1oLD/NO9GJw7kmn1fNgTrNZUl0zZNHbKYyWLICSpzF cKdXOlaPHDyN1mO88ZUJnJN2Y6S2ywMCZ0SFF3Eabi0UOyhzJCAERRLeQrZY5or25WeJ qbqWvXCytg83eI5Ccg8S7mUU65+MxnjhP1pCCtGcZ85hQOEEp0GOFlUsGbJNxeAjI+t6 AF09ZhuW3+f8zZhKvQU7xJeC20tzyKlzkzGwvIan4RRdbasvUUNDhZX1W3kxZ/UMBmeI 29rQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533luWHXCKoLl6WqQ83Tmpp/TdWiXnqIWcucHI0VyiuGW1jUHR/R cy1hChmlcmLVv5KK14wLOB3n X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ6yLpEuL3NLLae/SHWDbHGGVZHyet5JT4AcxBJkCBHtpieNRtExsakSVBqTkRt1Ay38lNxg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4d0b:: with SMTP id o11mr4335910wmh.36.1625309382546; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 03:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.105] (84-75-70-121.dclient.hispeed.ch. [84.75.70.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n12sm6969422wmq.5.2021.07.03.03.49.41 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Jul 2021 03:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Interesting portage upgrade To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <5722307.lOV4Wx5bFT@wstn> From: Tamer Higazi Message-ID: <762a2702-92fb-7d85-fb72-15d92bdaaf09@googlemail.com> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 12:49:40 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5722307.lOV4Wx5bFT@wstn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: de-DE X-Archives-Salt: 242ddbd6-2bfd-47be-950f-01e8caeb6549 X-Archives-Hash: a1708c01460745da5a1eaae7ddceffe2 Hi Peter, You are not the only one I saw these phenomes. What I also figured out, that "blocks" before an portage upgrade also had been resolved completly. best, Tamer Am 26 Jun 2021 um 09:57 schrieb Peter Humphrey: > Hello list, > > This is just an observation. > > I update the rescue system on this box weekly. Today, portage version 3.0.18 > wanted to upgrade itself to 3.0.20-r6, plus 31 other packages, and remerge 16 > others. After saying No and emerging portage, those 16 remerges were not > included: just the 31 upgrades. > > This is the first time I've witnessed a real difference in portage's behaviour > between versions, as far as I can remember. > > As I said, just an observation. >