make[2]: Nothing to be done for 'install'. make[4]: Entering directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2/work/build/gas' /bin/mkdir -p '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2/image/usr/share/binutils-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.38/info' /var/tmp/portage/._portage_reinstall_.beihu83q/bin/ebuild-helpers/xattr/install -c -m 644 ./doc/as.info '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2/image/usr/share/binutils-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.38/info' /usr/bin/install: cannot create regular file '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2/image/usr/share/binutils-data/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/2.38/info/as.info': File exists make[4]: *** [Makefile:1909: install-info-am] Error 1 make[4]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2/work/build/gas' ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an unstable amd64 chroot image at a tinderbox (==build bot) name: 17.1_desktop-j4-20220807-170006 ------------------------------------------------------------------- gcc-config -l: [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-12.1.1 * clang/llvm (if any): /usr/lib/llvm/14 14.0.6 Python 3.10.5 Available Rust versions: [1] rust-bin-1.62.1 * php cli: HEAD of ::gentoo commit 3716678c871e6e0a3c1fecf9b8432b40c4a7a2fe Author: Repository mirror & CI <repomirrorci@gentoo.org> Date: Sun Aug 7 16:17:04 2022 +0000 2022-08-07 16:17:04 UTC emerge -qpvO sys-devel/binutils [ebuild R ] sys-devel/binutils-2.38-r2 USE="doc* gold plugins (-cet) (-default-gold) -multitarget -nls* -pgo -static-libs -test -vanilla"
Created attachment 798565 [details] emerge-info.txt
Created attachment 798568 [details] emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 798571 [details] environment
Created attachment 798574 [details] etc.portage.tar.bz2
Created attachment 798577 [details] logs.tar.bz2
Created attachment 798580 [details] sys-devel:binutils-2.38-r2:20220807-173220.log.bz2
Created attachment 798583 [details] temp.tar.bz2
Seems like a weird race condition between two make processes calling install for the same file.
Anyone seeing this with 2.39 ?
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #9) > Anyone seeing this with 2.39 ? Seems not.