On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 20:54 on Friday 19 November 2010, Allan > Gottlieb did opine thusly: > > > > It seems, however, that you're still going down the path of emerge > > > > > > -e @world. Why is that? If it's just to be confident that everything > > > is back to the way it should be then I understand that. I've done it > > > myself many times in the last 12 years. > > > > Yes that is the reason. > > > Sounds like the big guns approach, can be valid at times. > > I'm usually the first one to chip in about emerge -e world being stupid > when > someone reads the gcc upgrade guide, but sometimes you have a box that just > will not fix itself despite hours of troubleshooting. In a case like this a > full remerge often fixes mysterious but actual real problems. > > I've had pretty much the same thing happen. In my case, 'eix' showed that I had 0.9.8p and 1.0.0 installed in two different slots. However the 3 files that belong to 0.9.8 were missing. Fortunately, I run with --buildpkg so I had a binary package lying around. Emerging it with -gK restored the files, and everything was okay. OTOH, a couple of years ago I did an emerge -e and regretted it. It kept stopping because something wasn't configured right, and I had to go through dispatch-conf on everything up to that point before I could get it to proceed. Good luck with your "few days". Mine was more like 2 weeks of stop-and-go. -- Kevin O'Gorman, PhD
