On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:34:48 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:50:20 -0400, > > J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > > > Hi. In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at > > > 0.7.1 and they all want to update to 9999. Does anyone know why this > > > should be -- normally 9999 is not in the normal update sequence. > > > > > > I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago. No harm > > > has come yet, but I have not done the update till I can figure out > > > what is happening here -- particularly if I need a rescue cd which is > > > using zfs 0.7.1. > > > > > > Thanks in advance for any ideas. > > > > check your keywords, how did you unmask zfs? > > > > Here are mine: > > > > $ grep -r zfs /etc/portage > > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs > > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs-kmod > > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-kmod-0.7.1 ~amd64 > > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-0.7.1 ~amd64 > > $ grep -r spl /etc/portage > > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-kernel/spl > > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1 ~amd64 > > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and I > think this is what made portage do that. > When I commented them out, things are back to normal. > > Thanks again.
That might have happened automatically as portage tends to want to unmask the latest version if it can't find an unmasked version that matches requirements. I always answer "no" to those requests and copy/paste the actual lines myself after checking they are really what I want. -- Joost
