SEO

Hi Newsgroup!

Since the update to portage-2.0.51-r1, at the end an update, I get
"Unable to run required binary", e.g.:

>>> original instance of package unmerged safely.
* Updating config files...
>>> Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache...
* Caching service dependencies...
>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools-3.0-r2 merged.
Unable to run required binary.

Running emerge with --verbose does not give any more details, and the
emerge.log is also not enlightening - it concedes that something is wrong
(entry: "terminating" instead of the usual "exiting successfully"), but
that's it.

Any help would be warmly received.

Thanks,
Anno.

Anno v. Heimburg wrote:

> Hi Newsgroup!
>
> Since the update to portage-2.0.51-r1, at the end an update, I get
> "Unable to run required binary", e.g.:
>
>>>> original instance of package unmerged safely.
> * Updating config files...
>>>> Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache...
> * Caching service dependencies...
>>>> sys-apps/module-init-tools-3.0-r2 merged.
> Unable to run required binary.
>
> Running emerge with --verbose does not give any more details, and the
> emerge.log is also not enlightening - it concedes that something is wrong
> (entry: "terminating" instead of the usual "exiting successfully"), but
> that's it.
>
> Any help would be warmly received.
>
Nothing to add except that I am having the same problem.
--
Stephen Fairchild

So anyway, it was like, 00:47 CEST Oct 22 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Anno v. Heimburg was all like, "Dude,

> Since the update to portage-2.0.51-r1, at the end an update, I get
> "Unable to run required binary", e.g.:

[..]

I can't say anything about that, but for me 2.0.51 was horribly broken
in that it didn't actually compile anything. It happily munched
through the list of updates and recorded them as merged, but 'epm -ql'
showed no files at all for a given package merged with 2.0.51, and an
experimental 'ebuild <foo> compile' did nothing more than unpack the
sources.

In the end I followed the instructions in README.RESCUE and unpacked
a 2.0.51-rc9 version of portage which I could then use to upgrade to
2.0.51-r2. This one seems to be working fine.

Maybe that will work for you as well.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:19:34 up 44 days, 19:47, 13 users, load average: 0.55, 1.28, 0.75
Linux 2.6.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

Stephen Fairchild wrote:

[Snip - portage-2.0.51-r1 problems]

>> Any help would be warmly received.
>
> Nothing to add except that I am having the same problem.

Known bug (http://bugs.gentoo.org/68474). Sync and update portage.

--
PeKaJe

Let's do it. -- Gary Gilmore, to his firing squad

Johan Lindquist wrote:

> So anyway, it was like, 00:47 CEST Oct 22 2004, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Anno v. Heimburg was all like, "Dude,
>
>> Since the update to portage-2.0.51-r1, at the end an update, I get
>> "Unable to run required binary", e.g.:
>
> [..]
>
> I can't say anything about that, but for me 2.0.51 was horribly broken
> in that it didn't actually compile anything. It happily munched
> through the list of updates and recorded them as merged, but 'epm -ql'
> showed no files at all for a given package merged with 2.0.51, and an
> experimental 'ebuild <foo> compile' did nothing more than unpack the
> sources.
>
> In the end I followed the instructions in README.RESCUE and unpacked
> a 2.0.51-rc9 version of portage which I could then use to upgrade to
> 2.0.51-r2. This one seems to be working fine.
>
> Maybe that will work for you as well.
>
I found that I could install the packages that stopped short after issuing
emerge -u packagename. The ebuild resumed where it left off which is odd.

Needless to say I masked those versions of portage.
--
Stephen Fairchild

Peter Jensen wrote:

> Stephen Fairchild wrote:
>
> [Snip - portage-2.0.51-r1 problems]
>
>>> Any help would be warmly received.
>>
>> Nothing to add except that I am having the same problem.
>
> Known bug (http://bugs.gentoo.org/68474). Sync and update portage.
>
I am doing it now. Wish me luck.
--
Stephen Fairchild

Peter Jensen wrote:

> Known bug (http://bugs.gentoo.org/68474). Sync and update portage.
Worked. Thanks.

Anno.