Summary: | sys-apps/portage: detect conflicts that appear to be solvable with 1 additional backtracking run, and solve them | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Yanestra <Yanestra> |
Component: | Core - Dependencies | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | bkohler, dschridde+gentoobugs, esigra, pacho |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=615680 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 300071 |
Description
Yanestra
2016-09-26 18:21:54 UTC
If your emerge isn't continuing, there is probably another more serious problem. The output you showed is almost certainly a false-positive Were there any other conflicts in the same calculation? Generally, this type of behavior means that it ran out of backtracking runs before it settled on a valid solution. You can try using a larger --backtrack setting (default is 3). This was the only problem. Apparently, kde-plasma/kde-cli-tools-5.7.5 became flagged ~amd64 after installation. If I accept ~amd64 for that package, the problem disappears. What I want to say is, the error message is quite enigmatic. Yeah, it's a common source of frustration for users. It's also accompanied by a message suggesting to use a larger --backtrack value, which is the correct course of action. If a larger --backtrack value does not solve it, then we should investigate that. Sigh. If that issue's known, I might as well close this bug. A candidate for the wishlist, maybe. We could add some code to detect this specific case, where we have a slot conflict that appears to be solvable with 1 additional backtracking run, and allow for an extra backtracking run in this case. Also, I suspect that there may be a bug which prevents it from reaching the solution, even when given 1 additional backtracking run. It may be due to the resolver's preference for upgrades, since we want to upgrade packages whenever possible (and comment #0 shows a conflict which is solvable only by missing an upgrade). *** Bug 430190 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Zac Medico from comment #6) > We could add some code to detect this specific case, where we have a slot > conflict that appears to be solvable with 1 additional backtracking run, and > allow for an extra backtracking run in this case. We could have a scoring system that is based on the number of problems with the dependency graph, and use that to decide if it's appropriate to automatically allocate some more backtracking. |