Mick wrote: > On Friday 03 Feb 2017 22:00:11 Dale wrote: >> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>> Dale wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Portage lock? Sometimes, my brain does that too. lol >>> Hehe. >>> >>>> I thought about it after I hit send but figured you would get the >>>> thought, maybe you had one or the other in a mask/unmask file or >>>> something that resulted in a conflict? I was sort of thinking it but >>>> didn't type it in for some reason. Still, if you did the same command I >>>> posted, you would have seen the difference and thought on it. Generally >>>> if there is a difference like that, it's because of a local setting, or >>>> a change in the tree due to different sync time, which would give the >>>> idea of syncing again. >>> Again the same issue on another box: >>> >>> =============== %< ================== >>> $ equery l -p boost boost-build >>> >>> * Searching for boost ... >>> >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.55.0-r2:0/1.55.0 >>> [IP-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.56.0-r1:0/1.56.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.58.0-r1:0/1.58.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.59.0:0/1.59.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.60.0:0/1.60.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0:0/1.61.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0-r1:0/1.61.0 >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.62.0-r1:0/1.62.0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.63.0:0/1.63.0 >>> >>> * Searching for boost-build ... >>> >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0-r1:0 >>> [IP-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.56.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.58.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.59.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.60.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.61.0:0 >>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.62.0-r1:0 >>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.63.0:0 >>> =============== %< ================== >>> >>> Portage should be capable of an update. >>> >>>> Anyway, glad it is going. That's what matters. >>> Yep, glad that I have a solution for it now. >>> >>> - Jörg >> That is really weird. That looks like exactly the same output I have >> and mine updated just fine. At least, I don't recall having issues. I >> read a couple other posts where people were having to run the same >> command more than once to get portage to find a upgrade path. I wonder, >> does emerge/portage/tree have a hiccup somewhere? Is this a bug that >> hasn't quite had a finger put on it?? >> >> Weird. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) > From what I have seen when there are two stable versions of the same package, > portage needs to be told which one to install.
It should just update them. At least that is what it has always done for me. Once they remove the keyword/mask for the packages, they should be put in the upgrade list and portage just figure out which goes first, if it can't go in parallel. I don't recall having to tell emerge to do this other than my usual emerge -uvaDN world command. Dale :-) :-)
