Re: [gentoo-user] Disappearing useflag hell

[Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1991 bytes --]

On Nov 27, 2011 3:44 PM, "Dale" <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> walt wrote:
>>
>> Somewhere deep in the bowels of portage my 'introspection' useflag is
>> vanishing -- but on just one of my three machines.
>>
>> I set the introspection useflag on all three machines (two ~amd64 and
>> one ~x86) but when I run emerge --info, only two of the machines show
>> the introspection useflag in the output.  Why?
>>
>> All three machines share the same /usr/portage by NFS, so they all
>> see the same use.mask and use.force files, etc.
>>
>> I'm running the default linux desktop gnome profile on all three.
>>
>> I tried deleting my /etc/portage/* on the problem machine, which made
>> no difference.
>>
>> I even tried using an empty make.conf and adding the single line
>> USE="introspection", but that made no difference either.
>>
>> When I flip other useflags in make.conf the changes show up in the
>> output of emerge --info, but not when I flip 'introspection'.
>>
>> Two days wasted and I'm out of ideas.
>>
>> Anyone understand the details of emerge --info or what I can do to
>> diagnose this problem?
>>
>>
>>
>
> I searched the -dev mailing list and only found references to the flag
being enabled on a lot of packages.  It appears to be a Gnome thing but
don't quote me on it.  Is it possible that it is enable by default whether
it is set or not?  There was talk of making it on in the profile instead of
make.conf.

Yeah, could it be part of your profile? That's up in /etc so it could be
different among hosts.

>
> I would do a emerge -pv <package that uses the flag> and see if it shows
up there.  If it is a small package, compile it then see if it is built in
or not.  If it is, then they have it turned on somewhere.  This is a bug
report that you can read on too.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324989
>
> That help any?
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> --
> I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or
how you interpreted my words!
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2671 bytes --]