Re: [gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[J. Roeleveld]

On December 15, 2016 5:31:58 PM GMT+01:00, Mick  
wrote:
>On Wednesday 14 Dec 2016 06:48:41 J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:06:00 AM Philip Webb wrote:
>> > I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.
>> > 
>> > The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
>> > all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
>> > The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via
>'-C',
>> > then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.
>> > 
>> > Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
>> > If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
>> > to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of
>pkgs.
>> > 
>> > Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.
>> > 
>> > Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?
>> 
>> I did exactly the same upgrade on 2 machines, along with an entire
>plasma
>> upgrade, and didn't encounter this issue.
>> 
>> For comparison, this is what I generally use:
>> 
>> # emerge -vauDN --with-bdeps=y @world
>> # emerge -va --depclean
>> 
>> Do you only upgrade subsets? Or the full world?
>> I found that with libraries like qt, python and similar, only
>upgrading
>> those makes it impossible for portage to properly handle the
>blockers.
>> 
>> --
>> Joost
>
>I came across a similar problem on 4 PCs.  From memory the problem was 
>resolved when I manually unmerged dev-qt/qtcore and then updated world
>with 
>backtrack=90.  I did not have to run --with-bdeps=y.

The with bdeps option actually meant I didn't have to unmerge anything.

--
Joost
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[Mick]

On Wednesday 14 Dec 2016 06:48:41 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:06:00 AM Philip Webb wrote:
> > I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.
> > 
> > The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
> > all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
> > The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via '-C',
> > then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.
> > 
> > Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
> > If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
> > to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of pkgs.
> > 
> > Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.
> > 
> > Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?
> 
> I did exactly the same upgrade on 2 machines, along with an entire plasma
> upgrade, and didn't encounter this issue.
> 
> For comparison, this is what I generally use:
> 
> # emerge -vauDN --with-bdeps=y @world
> # emerge -va --depclean
> 
> Do you only upgrade subsets? Or the full world?
> I found that with libraries like qt, python and similar, only upgrading
> those makes it impossible for portage to properly handle the blockers.
> 
> --
> Joost

I came across a similar problem on 4 PCs.  From memory the problem was 
resolved when I manually unmerged dev-qt/qtcore and then updated world with 
backtrack=90.  I did not have to run --with-bdeps=y.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[Dale]

John Covici wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:00 -0500,
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.
>>
>> The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
>> all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
>> The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via '-C',
>> then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.
>>
>> Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
>> If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
>> to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of pkgs.
>>
>> Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.
>>
>> Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?
> I wonder if a larger backtrack=120 or higher would fix your problem or
> get portage to detect the blocks?  30 seems hardly enough these days.
>

I set mine to 100 at least a year ago.  As you say, 30 just didn't go
quite deep enough in some situations.  It takes emerge longer to resolve
it but it seems to resolve it better which is better than being fast but
not able to complete the job. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[J. Roeleveld]

On Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:06:00 AM Philip Webb wrote:
> I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.
> 
> The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
> all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
> The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via '-C',
> then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.
> 
> Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
> If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
> to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of pkgs.
> 
> Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.
> 
> Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?

I did exactly the same upgrade on 2 machines, along with an entire plasma 
upgrade, and didn't encounter this issue.

For comparison, this is what I generally use:

# emerge -vauDN --with-bdeps=y @world
# emerge -va --depclean

Do you only upgrade subsets? Or the full world?
I found that with libraries like qt, python and similar, only upgrading those 
makes it impossible for portage to properly handle the blockers.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[John Covici]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:00 -0500,
Philip Webb wrote:
> 
> I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.
> 
> The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
> all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
> The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via '-C',
> then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.
> 
> Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
> If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
> to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of pkgs.
> 
> Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.
> 
> Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?

I wonder if a larger backtrack=120 or higher would fix your problem or
get portage to detect the blocks?  30 seems hardly enough these days.

-- 
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

[gentoo-user] Portage vs Qt

[Philip Webb]

I just updated Qt5 to 5.6.2 & ran into a familiar Portage problem.

The emerge command responds with a list of "conflicts",
all involving 5.6.1 vs 5.6.2 versions of the  c 15  pkgs.
The only way to get around this is to unmerge the existing pkgs via '-C',
then install the new versions.  That works, but it's brute force.

Portage sb able to resolve this kind of conflict for itself.
If not, then at least it should advise users intelligently
to do what I've just described.  It can happen with other sets of pkgs.

Yes, I did do 'backtrack==30'.

Before I send in a bug, does anyone else have useful comments ?

-- 
,,
SUPPORT ___//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT`-O--O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca