From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RV6Td-0000WI-Hb for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:02:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E7B121C275; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B8B21C25F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:00:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81361B400D for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:00:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.993 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.993 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.506, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.201] autolearn=ham Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dRXbBOivvGFV for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:59:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A831B4007 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:59:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RV6Qb-0006Uu-Bx for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:59:45 +0100 Received: from adsl-69-234-185-165.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([69.234.185.165]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:59:45 +0100 Received: from w41ter by adsl-69-234-185-165.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:59:45 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: walt Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Disappearing useflag hell [SOLVED] Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:02:02 -0800 Message-ID: References: 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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-69-234-185-165.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111117 Thunderbird/8.0 In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: fa6eb93e-7d80-43fa-b0c4-e69af00e5c43 X-Archives-Hash: b7d26917201d5737b6e86db8023a9876 On 11/27/2011 02:34 PM, 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. > > All three machines share the same /usr/portage by NFS, so they all > see the same use.mask and use.force files, etc. Arrgh! Wrong! This is just as stupid as I knew it would be :( I started sharing portage over NFS last August, but on the problem machine I left /etc/make.profile pointing to the *old* repository on that machine, which hasn't been updated since August. I finally found the problem by running euse -a introspection and found it looking at the old profile instead of the fresh one. The relevant difference between the new and old profiles is that files like use.mask and package.use.mask have been updated to unmask the introspection useflag. For those interested in the gory details, portage was indeed reading the introspection useflag from my /etc/make.conf along with all my other useflags, but then the old profile was masking it out, leaving all my other useflag changes intact. That really fooled me. Thanks, Dale for all of your research. It prodded my fuzzy old brain into looking in different directions. Bill, your idea about the profile was right, but I thought you meant /etc/profile, not /etc/make.profile.