From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JCMyg-0003n3-Qp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:31:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2727DE0BA6; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.227]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90133E0B58 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:30:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id s18so1956082nze.1 for ; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:30:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=/tn1ZEXMBQw0t7caJ8lnpNsvtnvwJJkj7wtJTZB4srA=; b=PNV+RiSXJp2WQ3dTrvIYKerf1k5s058VHaByi3dvi70peNTzmZ+cAsoXzbAFEeO/4xwDq466Mtx8z2Oq3lgVtgfvO2yw1/6URy4a664HKEvQZD7PgcoijfrDnjAdNkF62iYshRNG4mqPW1HezTda1daWvYlxnRpDxJRdxj4QKrI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=sMCltiw3liLjhVmaBvhWeFtw/2xnBTcMd/qjCvEx4Xv/GzbsLu5UPjXz01uXVyu8bWTvFLo6cpGUKS8qOAeizA2x5Gk2MRkhX5Qw06OV+g2AHOkmrn/yZqTQSk4fFD14SvdkCZtWcS5AlwRK/PZwQSphJCvkhRZNS8FkUJJBg3w= Received: by 10.142.12.14 with SMTP id 14mr640069wfl.81.1199831451922; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:30:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.86.13 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:30:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <9acccfe50801081430m630b547aj6b76f78236820374@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 14:30:51 -0800 From: "Kevin O'Gorman" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Suddenly emerging unstable packages = why? In-Reply-To: <200801081748.19856.alan.mckinnon@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18665_30538592.1199831451917" References: <9acccfe50801041941kad7befesf29ec89d65fc24c3@mail.gmail.com> <200801071621.50957.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <9acccfe50801080635l52782c55x962108c9d45b4b3f@mail.gmail.com> <200801081748.19856.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: d9ff7986-d23e-4b38-8e0b-a484393bf350 X-Archives-Hash: 6ceee916f5c5925967ac61bc29135e88 ------=_Part_18665_30538592.1199831451917 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Jan 8, 2008 7:48 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Kevin O'Gorman wrote: > > Hmm, sounds reasonable. Perhaps you mistakenly ran emerge --sync > > instead of eix-sync that one time? I've done it myself once or thrice > > :-) > > > > I would not have thought so because it's all done in cron jobs thrice > > per week, giving me reports via email. > > > > However, it is true that emerge sync and eix-update were in two > > separate jobs scheduled an hour apart. It is vaguely conceivable > > that they got out of step somehow. I've unified them, and hope > > things go better now. > > Yeah, that's probably it then. Doing an emerge at randomly selected > times will cause i in about 60 or so to fall in that hour window :-) > > Any particular reason you run two separate jobs and not just eix-sync > (which does both in sequence)? > > alan > > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > Originally, because the output was hard to read I think. And I figured that starting them an hour apart would ensure sequence anyway. -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD ------=_Part_18665_30538592.1199831451917 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Jan 8, 2008 7:48 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Hmm, sounds reasonable. Perhaps you mistakenly ran emerge --sync
> instead of eix-sync that one time? I've done it myself once or thrice
> :-)
>
> I would not have thought so because it's all done in cron jobs thrice
> per week, giving me reports via email.
>
> However, it is true that emerge sync and eix-update were in two
> separate jobs scheduled an hour apart. It is vaguely conceivable
> that they got out of step somehow. I've unified them, and hope
> things go better now.

Yeah, that's probably it then. Doing an emerge at randomly selected
times will cause i in about 60 or so to fall in that hour window :-)

Any particular reason you run two separate jobs and not just eix-sync
(which does both in sequence)?

alan

--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Originally, because the output was hard to read I think.  And I figured that starting them an hour apart would ensure sequence anyway.


--
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
------=_Part_18665_30538592.1199831451917-- -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list