Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-14 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Sunday 13 Apr 2014 22:48:43 Rick Zero_Chaos Farina wrote: The real answer is almost certainly dynamic-deps. The binary packages store the deps from BUILD time, while when you are installing things live, it allows the current ebuilds to update the deps even for installed packages. That

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-14 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Monday 14 Apr 2014 04:41:05 Tom Wijsman wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:00:10 +0100 Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: How is it possible for portage to emerge packages differently when it's installing from packages? The difference is mostly accountable to build-time

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-14 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:43:33 +0100 Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: Many thanks for that little bit of magic. I've incorporated it into a simple script to find all the missed packages and list their atoms in a form suitable for piping into emerge. You might not want to do that;

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-14 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:32:49 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: That means, after you install a package, if the deps in the ebuild are changed, portage will take that into account for source builds, but binary packages are LOCKED to the deps from the time they were built. Why dynamic-deps

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-14 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Monday 14 Apr 2014 16:15:57 Tom Wijsman wrote: On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 14:43:33 +0100 Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: Many thanks for that little bit of magic. I've incorporated it into a simple script to find all the missed packages and list their atoms in a form suitable for

[gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-13 Thread Peter Humphrey
Hello list, me again :-( (Apologies if I'm trying your patience - my own is wearing pretty thin.) I've discovered a problem in portage on the same Atom mini-server as I've mentioned here recently. # emerge -epv world ---8 Total: 329 packages (329 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 595,566 kB #

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-13 Thread Alan McKinnon
On 13/04/2014 23:00, Peter Humphrey wrote: Hello list, me again :-( (Apologies if I'm trying your patience - my own is wearing pretty thin.) I've discovered a problem in portage on the same Atom mini-server as I've mentioned here recently. # emerge -epv world ---8 Total: 329

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-13 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Monday 14 Apr 2014 00:30:44 Alan McKinnon wrote: A proper answer involves posting the full verbose output of those emerge commands. OK. Attached; list and listk are as in my first message. Without that we can only guess. My guess is that USE is different between your Atom and your build

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-13 Thread Tom Wijsman
On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:00:10 +0100 Peter Humphrey pe...@prh.myzen.co.uk wrote: How is it possible for portage to emerge packages differently when it's installing from packages? The difference is mostly accountable to build-time dependencies; without binpkg they need to be pulled in for the

Re: [gentoo-user] Weird portage behaviour

2014-04-13 Thread Rick Zero_Chaos Farina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/13/2014 08:20 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Monday 14 Apr 2014 00:30:44 Alan McKinnon wrote: A proper answer involves posting the full verbose output of those emerge commands. OK. Attached; list and listk are as in my first message.