Mick wrote: > On Saturday 04 Feb 2017 01:33:24 Dale wrote: >> Mick wrote: >>> On Friday 03 Feb 2017 22:00:11 Dale wrote: >>>> Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>>> Dale wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> Portage lock? Sometimes, my brain does that too. lol >>>>> Hehe. >>>>> >>>>>> I thought about it after I hit send but figured you would get the >>>>>> thought, maybe you had one or the other in a mask/unmask file or >>>>>> something that resulted in a conflict? I was sort of thinking it but >>>>>> didn't type it in for some reason. Still, if you did the same command >>>>>> I >>>>>> posted, you would have seen the difference and thought on it. >>>>>> Generally >>>>>> if there is a difference like that, it's because of a local setting, or >>>>>> a change in the tree due to different sync time, which would give the >>>>>> idea of syncing again. >>>>> Again the same issue on another box: >>>>> >>>>> =============== %< ================== >>>>> $ equery l -p boost boost-build >>>>> >>>>> * Searching for boost ... >>>>> >>>>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.55.0-r2:0/1.55.0 >>>>> [IP-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.56.0-r1:0/1.56.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.58.0-r1:0/1.58.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.59.0:0/1.59.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.60.0:0/1.60.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0:0/1.61.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.61.0-r1:0/1.61.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ] dev-libs/boost-1.62.0-r1:0/1.62.0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-libs/boost-1.63.0:0/1.63.0 >>>>> >>>>> * Searching for boost-build ... >>>>> >>>>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.55.0-r1:0 >>>>> [IP-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.56.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.58.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.59.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.60.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.61.0:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ] dev-util/boost-build-1.62.0-r1:0 >>>>> [-P-] [ ~] dev-util/boost-build-1.63.0:0 >>>>> =============== %< ================== >>>>> >>>>> Portage should be capable of an update. >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, glad it is going. That's what matters. >>>>> Yep, glad that I have a solution for it now. >>>>> >>>>> - Jörg >>>> That is really weird. That looks like exactly the same output I have >>>> and mine updated just fine. At least, I don't recall having issues. I >>>> read a couple other posts where people were having to run the same >>>> command more than once to get portage to find a upgrade path. I wonder, >>>> does emerge/portage/tree have a hiccup somewhere? Is this a bug that >>>> hasn't quite had a finger put on it?? >>>> >>>> Weird. >>>> >>>> Dale >>>> >>>> :-) :-) >>> From what I have seen when there are two stable versions of the same >>> package, portage needs to be told which one to install. >> It should just update them. At least that is what it has always done >> for me. Once they remove the keyword/mask for the packages, they should >> be put in the upgrade list and portage just figure out which goes first, >> if it can't go in parallel. > There should be no keyword/mask to remove. I am talking about a package > which > at this point in time has two unkeyworded and unmasked stable versions, like > boost and boost-build above.
I was talking about when the devs do it. Once they remove the keyword/mask and portage sees a update is available, it should just update. > >> I don't recall having to tell emerge to do this other than my usual >> emerge -uvaDN world command. > I'll post an example next time I come across this (assuming I don't forget), > as it happens every now and then here. The solution is to emerge -1av > <package> as Neil has already posted. > I'd be interested in that. Given some posts by others, it seems something odd is going on at times. Dale :-) :-)
