Our automated repository checks [1] have detected that the 'n900' repository contains ebuilds that trigger fatal errors during the cache regeneration. This usually means that the ebuilds call 'die' in global scope indicating serious issues. Global-scope failures prevent the ebuild not only from being installed but also from being properly processed by the Package Manager. Since metadata can not be obtained for those ebuilds, no cache entries are created for them and the Package Manager needs to retry running them every time it stumbles upon them. This involves both a serious slowdown and repeating error output while performing dependency resolution. The most common cause of global-scope failures is use of removed or banned APIs in old ebuilds. In particular, this includes eclasses being removed or removing support for old EAPIs. Nonetheless there are also other issues such as performing illegal operations in global scope (external program calls), malformed bash in ebuilds or malformed metadata.xml. The error log for the repository can be found at: http://gentoo.github.io/repo-qa-check-results/n900.html In particular, please look for highlighted '!!! ERROR' and '!!! caught exception' lines. The former usually mean failures coming from eclasses and the ebuild itself, while exceptions usually mean malformed ebuilds or metadata.xml. While at it, please consider fixing global-scope 'use' call warnings (if any). They are not fatal but are considered a serious QA violation. 'use' functions must not ever be called outside of phase functions. Please fix the issue ASAP, possibly via removing unmaintained, old ebuilds. We reserve the right to remove the repository from our list if we do not receive any reply within 4 weeks. [1]:https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Repository_mirror_and_CI
"any reply". Maybe some day I'll get time to update these. Curious Portage didn't seem to have a problem, though.
(In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #1) > "any reply". Maybe some day I'll get time to update these. Curious Portage > didn't seem to have a problem, though. Did you try to run one of the failing ebuilds? Obviously Portage would fail as well if you tried to run an ebuild with non-existing eclass.
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > (In reply to Luke-Jr from comment #1) > > "any reply". Maybe some day I'll get time to update these. Curious Portage > > didn't seem to have a problem, though. > > Did you try to run one of the failing ebuilds? Obviously Portage would fail > as well if you tried to run an ebuild with non-existing eclass. No, I probably haven't run them in a while - but eix usually calls Portage to parse ebuilds to build its database and complains about (some of?) the ones in my main overlay.
Maybe you've got the results cached somewhere. eix uses local caches if they're available.
The repository has been removed, rendering this bug obsolete.
