[gentoo-user] are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?

[gentoo-user] are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?

[Allan Gottlieb]

Gnome-light recently went stable on x86 so my last emerge world produced
a long list of packages to merge.  Fine.

At the end it says

Total: 93 packages (87 upgrades, 4 new, 2 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 223,796 kB
Conflict: 3 blocks
Portage tree and overlays:
 [0] /usr/portage
 [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined

Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]      

Since it offers to merge and there are no B's in the list, I assume
this version of portage resolved the blockage.  However, there are
nearly a hundred packages and some of them are important so I would like
to confirm that it is OK to let portage merge these.

thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --]

Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> Gnome-light recently went stable on x86 so my last emerge world produced
> a long list of packages to merge.  Fine.
> 
> At the end it says
> 
> Total: 93 packages (87 upgrades, 4 new, 2 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 223,796 kB
> Conflict: 3 blocks
> Portage tree and overlays:
>  [0] /usr/portage
>  [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined
> 
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]      
> 
> Since it offers to merge and there are no B's in the list, I assume
> this version of portage resolved the blockage.  However, there are
> nearly a hundred packages and some of them are important so I would like
> to confirm that it is OK to let portage merge these.
> 
> thanks,
> allan
> 
> 

One of the big steps which are in the newer portage is version is the enhanced blocker resolution. So uit
should go easy with your update. I am running the gnome-2.24* package since along time and i was always fine.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?

[ABCD]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> Gnome-light recently went stable on x86 so my last emerge world produced
> a long list of packages to merge.  Fine.
> 
> At the end it says
> 
> Total: 93 packages (87 upgrades, 4 new, 2 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 223,796 kB
> Conflict: 3 blocks
> Portage tree and overlays:
>  [0] /usr/portage
>  [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined
> 
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]      
> 
> Since it offers to merge and there are no B's in the list, I assume
> this version of portage resolved the blockage.  However, there are
> nearly a hundred packages and some of them are important so I would like
> to confirm that it is OK to let portage merge these.
> 
> thanks,
> allan
> 

It should be ok, and as there are "3 blocks", you will probably find
three instances of "[blocks b     ]" (note the lowercase "b"), which are
automatically resolved (usually) by an "[unmerge      ]" line further
down (or up, if you are using --tree). This corresponds to the new
behavior, which automatically fixes problems like the old
e2fsprogs/com_err/ss/e2fsprogs-libs blocker, without breaking anything
(well, the system may be in an inconsistent state if you loose power at
*exactly* the wrong time, but that can happen anyway during a merge,
even without this new behavior).

PS: I hope I didn't ramble on too much... this was going to be much
longer, and less coherent.
- --
ABCD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkm+35EACgkQOypDUo0oQOpZ9ACeKsemyDPiGoB6ndNNSA2KU6qP
a40AoLZuz6X72pIC4L4lREs7AIb/Muo2
=ilvV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: are blocks now "OK" with portage-2.1.6.7 ?

[Allan Gottlieb]

At Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:24:01 -0400 ABCD <en.ABCD@gmail.com> wrote:

> Allan Gottlieb wrote:
>> Gnome-light recently went stable on x86 so my last emerge world produced
>> a long list of packages to merge.  Fine.
>> 
>> At the end it says
>> 
>> Total: 93 packages (87 upgrades, 4 new, 2 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 223,796 kB
>> Conflict: 3 blocks
>> Portage tree and overlays:
>>  [0] /usr/portage
>>  [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined
>> 
>> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]      
>> 
>> Since it offers to merge and there are no B's in the list, I assume
>> this version of portage resolved the blockage.  However, there are
>> nearly a hundred packages and some of them are important so I would like
>> to confirm that it is OK to let portage merge these.
>> 
>> thanks,
>> allan
>> 
>
> It should be ok, and as there are "3 blocks", you will probably find
> three instances of "[blocks b     ]" (note the lowercase "b"), which are
> automatically resolved (usually) by an "[unmerge      ]" line further
> down (or up, if you are using --tree). This corresponds to the new
> behavior, which automatically fixes problems like the old
> e2fsprogs/com_err/ss/e2fsprogs-libs blocker, without breaking anything
> (well, the system may be in an inconsistent state if you loose power at
> *exactly* the wrong time, but that can happen anyway during a merge,
> even without this new behavior).
>
> PS: I hope I didn't ramble on too much... this was going to be much
> longer, and less coherent.

Thank you and justin.  I did look for the B' (but was looking for
capital B) and didn't find it.  After justin's msg, I let the emerge go
and it has finished successfully.

Thanks again,
allan