On 6/5/24 2:05 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: > What I found misleading (and tripped over) was the implication that > the three step migration process outlined in the news item had a > reasonable likelyhood of working for a large percentage of users. > > If the new items had warned that anybody using one of <hundreds?> > packages that won't work with 3.12 are going to have to stop after > step 1 until those packages have been brought "up to date" so that > they can build with 3.12. Had I known that, I wouldn't have tried the > three step migration and would have simply postponed the upgrade.
FWIW, I do think that for a large percentage of users, the lagging packages simply aren't relevant to their use cases so it would indeed work. Regardless, the purpose of the 3-step process I think is just to ensure that portage doesn't trip while scheduling the rebuilds. If you are getting dependency conflicts with the one-step process (emerge -puDU @world) then steps 2 and 3 are likely not going to be able to be fully carried out. -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
