| 1 |
Grrr multiple accounts... |
| 2 |
---------- Forwarded message ---------- |
| 3 |
From: "Sven Vermeulen" <sven.j.vermeulen@×××××.com> |
| 4 |
Date: Nov 30, 2012 6:06 PM |
| 5 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] setools and libsemanage conflicting |
| 6 |
dependencies |
| 7 |
To: <gentoo-hardened@l.g.o> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
On Nov 30, 2012 5:39 PM, "Stan Sander" <stsander@×××××.net> wrote: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Am getting ready to do a world update on my ~amd64 box this morning and |
| 13 |
> came across the following conflict. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> (dev-lang/swig-1.3.40-r1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by |
| 16 |
> <dev-lang/swig-2.0 required by (app-admin/setools-3.3.7-r6::gentoo, |
| 17 |
> ebuild scheduled for merge) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> (dev-lang/swig-2.0.8::gentoo, installed) pulled in by |
| 20 |
> >=dev-lang/swig-2.0.4-r1 required by |
| 21 |
> (sys-libs/libsemanage-2.1.9::gentoo, installed) |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> If I mask 3.3.7-r6 of setools the problem does not exist as r5 which I |
| 24 |
> already have seems quite happy with swig-2.x. So I'm thinking that the |
| 25 |
> < in the dependency should actually be a > in the r6 ebuild. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Nope it is correct. setools requires swig-1 whereas others require swig-2. |
| 28 |
The dependencies are build-only dependencies so in theory portage can |
| 29 |
downgrade/upgrade swig as needed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
If you upgrade setools first and then @world, does that make it happy? |
Archives