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 532B713881D for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:37:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46CB921C032; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:37:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from acheron.yagibdah.de (acheron.yagibdah.de [185.55.75.245]) (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 361FE21C009 for ; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:37:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from br-dmz-ip.yagibdah.de ([192.168.1.1] helo=heimdali.yagibdah.de) by acheron.yagibdah.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgBCU-0000iy-2f for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:37:06 +0200 Received: from lee by heimdali.yagibdah.de with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZgBCU-0006v8-0W for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 Sep 2015 14:37:06 +0200 From: lee To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] update problems In-Reply-To: <55FEDEE6.7010608@gmail.com> (Alan McKinnon's message of "Sun, 20 Sep 2015 18:29:26 +0200") Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 17:00:26 +0200 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <87mvw9cjjp.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> References: <87eghucic9.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <20150919210527.1930cf41@digimed.co.uk> <87zj0haz52.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <55FEDEE6.7010608@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org 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 X-Archives-Salt: 1379cc62-3c82-411c-bfdc-74e9d5f639a4 X-Archives-Hash: 4e8b7bfda197daeda91a78eba68e1d24 Alan McKinnon writes: > On 20/09/2015 17:28, lee wrote: >> Neil Bothwick writes: >> >>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2015 21:36:06 +0200, lee wrote: > [...] >>>> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been >>>> pulled !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: > [...] >>> These are unimportant, it is simply portage telling you it is not >>> updating some packages to the latest available and why. Personally, I >>> believe this sort of output should only be shown when using --verbose. >> > [...] >> Should I always ignore such messages? > > No, you should not ignore such messages. They are printed for a reason. Well, what can I do other than ignore them? With dependencies as they are, and given that I don't want to remove packages, some of the packages that could be upgraded to newer versions won't be upgraded because otherwise things might be broken. There's nothing I could do about that, or is there? > You have a SLOT conflict and whether that prevents you from proceeding > or not doesn't change the fact that portage knows you have that conflict. Is it possible to solve this conflict without removing packages? > In your specific case today, I believe portage will simply install the > lesser version and be done with it, but it will only do that when you > fix the USE issue (a whole separate issue) Probably --- yet it tells me about conflicts, makes them appear to be important, and leaves me wondering how to solve them. > [...] > The USE conflict for sure. Maybe the SLOT conflict but I think portage > will just deal with that one > [...] >> This one doesn't look very important, or does it? > > Chill dude, seriously. The sky is not about to fall on your head and the > bits on your disk are not going to miraculously re-arrange themselves > into Windows just because you can't do this update. Sure, yet why make unimportant messages look important and important ones unimportant? > Portage is what it is, deal with it. > > The portage team are all unpaid volunteers just liek everyone else and > none of us have any right at all to make demands of them. Especially not > you and I who are not active contribution solutions. I know --- however, making a suggestion to improve the messages is a contribution. > [...] >> How about adding comments to such messages, like "You don't need to do >> anything to be able to proceed." and "You need to fix this before you >> could proceed."? > > If emerge exited then you need to fix something in your config. > If emerge does not exit then your config can be used as-is. Messages more helpful could make it easier to figure out what needs to be fixed. > [...] >> The last sync I did before the one yesterday wasn't the day before >> yesterday but over three months ago, so don't ask me today (or next >> weekend or whenever I give it another try) when that exactly was. See >> what I mean? Asking me to mask all packages to a certain point in time >> is like asking me to do much of the package management by myself. > > Exactly. You DO need to do the package management yourself. The Gentoo > devs provide useful tools in the form of portage and the tree with it's > ebuilds and eclasses, plus some amazing automation. > > But, are here's the bit where so many people move away from Gentoo: > > You are required to do the management yourself, including most of the > thinking and all of the sweeping up of broken pieces. That's what you > signed up for when using Gentoo. Perhaps not so many people would move away if the messages were improved. > If you want to roll back the tree, then you need to implement a > solution that will let you do it as Gentoo does nto provide one. Git > now makes this easier. Converting to btrfs might work for that, if I can boot from it. > However, tree rollbacks are inadvisable for excellent technical reasons > - see if you can figure them out. Better to snapshot your entire system > and revert the snapshot if it goes south. That's not even advisable with sources, though IIRC, the reasons for that might not apply here. However, it's weird that a system like git makes it inadvisable to undo something, considering that being able to undo something very easily, is one important reason to invent and use such a system in the first place. Using snapshots for undoing things git is quite an application of overengineering. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.