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 6FB0F1381F3 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:05:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96572E0ABD; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.42.165]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34759E0AB3 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 10:05:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.42.132] (helo=smtp1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq2.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ubpd3-0003Tf-F9 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:05:13 +0200 Received: from 54698b76.cm-12-2c.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([84.105.139.118] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp1.tb.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ubpd2-0000AY-PY for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:05:13 +0200 Received: from [10.90.8.24] (unknown [62.140.132.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBC654B for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:04:24 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <5190AACE.2090205@gmail.com> References: <519006A0.2080807@gmail.com> <51900954.9050002@gmail.com> <51900F4D.2060907@gmail.com> <51908ECA.4020101@gmail.com> <5190AACE.2090205@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=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gcc compiling, is this normal? From: "J. Roeleveld" Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:04:57 +0200 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Ziggo-spambar: ---- X-Ziggo-spamscore: -4.6 X-Ziggo-spamreport: ALL_TRUSTED=-1,BAYES_00=-1.9,PROLO_TRUST_RDNS=-3,RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982,TW_BJ=0.077,TW_CX=0.077,TW_GC=0.077,TW_KP=0.077 X-Ziggo-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Status: No X-Spam-Flag: No X-Archives-Salt: 5578badb-a634-43fc-a486-ce2377270608 X-Archives-Hash: 5b68e2f079074f79902a9c9fd045e480 Dale wrote: >Alan McKinnon wrote: >> I'm not sure what to make of this. portage lists the packages >> correctly and has the SLOTs correct, but emerge seems to be launched >> incorrectly. It's all very odd, and looks like bug-report material. >To >> be useful you are going to need data. Could you quickpkg the current >> and previous versions of both SLOTs? That will make it easy to >upgrade >> and downgrade packages, then run emerge world over and over to see >> what it does without it taking 40 minutes each time.=20 > >Well, here is this: > >[-P-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.11.63:0 >[-P-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha173:0 >[IP-] [ ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha174:0 > >This is the portage update info. I use genlop -t to do this. I know >there is a better way but can't remember the command. lol I think it >was one of the q thingys.=20 > > Fri Apr 5 12:49:29 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha171 > merge time: 27 seconds. > > Sat Apr 6 11:00:10 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha171 > merge time: 26 seconds. > > Mon Apr 15 08:33:49 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha173 > merge time: 31 seconds. > > Mon May 6 22:36:15 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.0_alpha174 > merge time: 30 seconds. > > >Based on that, I would say it started about the time *173 hit. I can't >go back to the *171 since it is no longer in the tree.=20 > >I'm not sure I know enough about debugging to help much but it sure is >weird. Should have known something weird like this would hit me. :/ > >I'm sort of pretty active on this thing right now since I do some >volunteer mod work on a site. I'd rather not get myself to a spot >where >my rig aini't working. I'm not even doing upgrades like I used to.=20 >Well, not as often anyway. I just have to plan stuff to make sure I'm >up and running.=20 > >I checked for roach reports and didn't see this reported anywhere. I >wonder if a USE flag is triggering this? This is interesting: > >root@fireball / # emerge -pv =3Dsys-devel/gcc-4.4.7 =3Dsys-devel/gcc-4.5= .4 >=3Dsys-devel/gcc-4.6.3 > >These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > >Calculating dependencies... done! >[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3:4.6 USE=3D"gtk mudflap (multilib) >nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx* -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran* -gcj >-graphite (-hardened) (-libssp) -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ >-objc-gc {-test} -vanilla" 24 kB >[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.4.7:4.4 USE=3D"gtk mudflap (multilib) >nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran -gcj >(-hardened) (-libssp) -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc >{-test} -vanilla (-graphite%)" 0 kB >[ebuild R ] sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4:4.5 USE=3D"gtk mudflap (multilib) >nls nptl openmp (-altivec) -cxx -doc (-fixed-point) -fortran -gcj >(-hardened) (-libssp) -lto -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ >-objc-gc {-test} -vanilla" 0 kB > >Total: 3 packages (3 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 24 kB > >!!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been >pulled >!!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict: > >sys-devel/gcc:4.6 > > (sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by > (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot) > > (sys-devel/gcc-4.6.3::gentoo, installed) pulled in by > sys-devel/gcc[fortran,openmp?] required by >(virtual/fortran-0::gentoo, installed) > >=3Dsys-devel/gcc-4.2[cxx] required by >(sci-geosciences/googleearth-6.2.2.6613::gentoo, installed) > > >!!! Enabling --newuse and --update might solve this conflict. >!!! If not, it might help emerge to give a more specific suggestion. > >root@fireball / # > >I may need to make sense of this now. May not be the problem but >still. I don't have anything related to gcc in package.use either.=20 >I'm >not sure about the USE flag being changed on two but not the other.=20 >When I logoff as mod, I'm going to try to recompile that older version. > > >Thoughts? Could that be the cause? > >Dale > >:-) :-)=20 > >--=20 >I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood >or how you interpreted my words! Dale. My thoughts: enable the 'multislot' useflag for gcc. Portage is seeing all three as being in the same slot... -- Joost --=20 Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.