On Thursday, 7 May 2020 04:50:41 BST Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > On Thursday, May 7, 2020 7:31 AM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > OP, odds are the emerge failure is what triggered the problem. If it had > > completed without failure, it would likely have been a clean update. This > > is why I set up a chroot and do my updates there and use the -k option to > > install on my actual system. It takes very little time and so far, no > > breakages on my real system. If any thing fails, it's more likely to be > > in the chroot which won't hurt anything. If you able, may be a option > > worth thinking about for yourself as well. > > > > Dale > > > > :-) :-) > > ya. i said it already. emerge's update failed > with some package midways (some package needed > some USE flag change), but then layman stopped > working in this incomplete state. > > also the issue was simple. but i pointed out that > the inconvenience of having a fancy dependency on > a pms is still there.
Our portage sync cycles are different. I updated some python packages during
yesterday's resync on a stable system. Today there was no packages needing
update, but portage was unable to resolve layman:
======================================================
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies \
!!! Problem resolving dependencies for app-portage/layman from @selected
... done!
!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "app-portage/layman" has unmet
requirements.
- app-portage/layman-2.4.2-r1::gentoo USE="git -cvs (-darcs) (-g-sorcery) -gpg
-mercurial -sqlite -squashfs -subversion -sync-plugin-portage -test"
PYTHON_TARGETS="-python3_6"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
python_targets_python3_6
The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression:
any-of ( python_targets_python3_6 )
=======================================
Python3.6 is still installed so layman works as intended and in the near
future when >=layman-2.4.3 is stabilised in the tree, a regular update will
resolve the above issue. Since neither layman nor portage are functionally
borked, I don't perceive the above as a problem.
Nevertheless, I followed the original thread with interest. Technology and
programming languages evolve apace, so I understand a PMS running on python
for decades may be deemed suboptimal today, if other more suitable solutions
are now available. Unless someone skilled in those hypothetically better
technologies rocks up and contributes, something I think most would welcome, I
don't see the portage 'solution' moving away from python soon. I understand
Paludis was such an endeavour, but its attempt to dethrone python didn't
survive the test of time - or was it internal politics?
I am less exercised regarding the static Vs dynamic libraries argument, which
I also followed in the thread. I don't recall portage breaking here in what
must have been hundreds of upgrades on mostly stable systems, for more than 17
years. What I'm saying is, it has worked for me and I thank the devs and
maintainers for a job well done. :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
