On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 01:24:19PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina > <[email protected]> wrote: > > We already don't BUILD any new packages during update_seed. Originally > > we did, I encountered issues and fixed it in > > e7ea409acb52b43e9ea141c57201f9f87673f7ba to prevent building of packages > > during update_seed. > > Right, I see. > > So, to make sure that I'm on the same page: is the the problem that > we're using stale packages in stage1 and if so, where did they come > from? A previous stage1 build that didn't do update-seed?
That's where mine (and presumably iamben's) came from. However, they could also (I think) come from a stage1 build that used an older snapshot. I'm testing now with a build from: subarch: i686 version_stamp: 2013.1 target: stage1 rel_type: default profile: default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop portage_confdir: /var/tmp/catalyst/portage-conf/default/ snapshot: 20130208 source_subpath: default/stage3-i686-20121213 update_seed: yes Followed by another build with the same version_stamp but using: snapshot: 20130308 The idea is that the first build might produce packages linking libmpc.so.2, and the second build might reuse those packages, despite the stabilization of mpc-1.0.1 in the tree. I'm currently 31/75 on the first build, so it will be a bit longer before results are in. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
