On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 10:28:25 -0500,
Daniel Frey wrote:
>
> On 12/09/17 03:23, John Covici wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:51:03 -0500,
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/12/2017 21:12, John Covici wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 11:42:16 -0500,
> >>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/12/2017 17:46, John Covici wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 09:37:56 -0500,
> >>>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 07/12/2017 07:44, John Covici wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hi. In preparing for the profile switch and the emerge -e world, I
> >>
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>>> No, I don't think you should revert the profile change. I understood
> >>>> from your mail than you had not done that yet, and typed accordingly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think Michael is on the right track with backtrack - set it to
> >>>> something very high like 1000, see if that gets to a solution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I did switch back, but the only way I could do a "successful" update
> >>> was to mask off 5.26 and then it skipped the update and would have
> >>> been successful. If I switch to the new profile, I can do nothing as
> >>> far as perl goes. I will show the output of just trying to emerge
> >>> below, it seems there were many many packages still requiring 5.24.
> >>
> >> No, that's not right. The tree is consistent and portage can figure out
> >> how to get from perl-5.24 to perl-5.26
> >>
> >> You probably have a difference locally, I would search through
> >> /etc/portage looking for entries that mask some perl modules and peg
> >> them to 5.24 versions.
> >>
> >> Failing that, maybe you have a package installed that depends on a 5.24
> >> version of some module and this is the ripple effect
> >>
> >> Perhaps run emerge with "--verbose-conflicts" and also "emerge -e world"
> >> and post the results
> >>
> >>
> >>> This is with the new profile and backtrack set to 500.
> >>>
> >>> instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> >>> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
> >>>
> >>> dev-lang/perl:0
> >>>
> >>> (dev-lang/perl-5.26.1-r1:0/5.26::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
> >>> pulled in by
> >>> =dev-lang/perl-5.26* required by
> >>> (virtual/perl-ExtUtils-Manifest-1.700.0-r4:0/0::gentoo, installed)
> >>> ^ ^^^^^
> >>> dev-lang/perl (Argument)
> >>> (and 13 more with the same problems)
> >>>
> >>> (dev-lang/perl-5.24.3:0/5.24::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
> >>> =dev-lang/perl-5.24* required by
> >>> (virtual/perl-Term-ANSIColor-4.40.0-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
> >>> ^ ^^^^^
> >>> dev-lang/perl:0/5.24= required by
> >>> (dev-perl/XML-Twig-3.520.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
> >>> ^^^^^^^^
> >>> (and 260 more with the same problems)
> >>>
> >>> NOTE: Use the '--verbose-conflicts' option to display parents omitted
> >>> above
> >>>
> >>> It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask to
> >>> prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it is also
> >>> possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that they are
> >>> impossible to satisfy simultaneously. If such a conflict exists in
> >>> the dependencies of two different packages, then those packages can
> >>> not be installed simultaneously.
> >>>
> >>> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> >>> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> >
> > hmmm, nothing masked as far as perl modules, I will look at
> > verbose-conflicts and maybe write down all those modules and start
> > unmerging and see if eventually portage can figure out something -- I
> > don't really want to do that, however I will look at the conflicts
> > and see what I can find.
> >
> >
>
> I had a lot of problems with the perl updates as well, and could
> not get it to resolve. I wasted over an hour trying to resolve it
> (my poor Celeron would take 5-10 minutes trying to calculate
> dependencies, and I had to do this 6-7 times.)
>
> Note, what I did worked for me and may not work for you, so use
> this advice at your own risk: I emerged the new perl with
> --nodeps, and invoked `perl-cleaner all` to fix the mess
> afterwards. It had everything resolved in < 10 minutes. I didn't
> suffer any system breakage from using the sledgehammer approach,
> but others may not be so lucky... so, as I said, try it at your
> own risk.
I was thinking of just that myself, I may try that later today. I am
using zfs, and do snapshots frequently, so it might be possible to get
back if things are a disaster, but it might work at that. Did you
emerge perl again without the --nodeps afterwards to make sure?
--
Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is:
How do
you spend it?
John Covici
cov...@ccs.covici.com
