Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: portage dependency?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:51:13
Message-Id: 1230061867.31989.2.camel@liasis.inforead.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: portage dependency? by Mark Haney
1 On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 14:40 -0500, Mark Haney wrote:
2 > Duncan wrote:
3 > > "Mark Haney" <mhaney@××××××××××××.org> posted
4 > > 4951001C.10602@××××××××××××.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 23 Dec 2008
5 > > 10:13:32 -0500:
6 > >
7 > >> Duncan wrote:
8 > >>> "Mark Haney" <mhaney@××××××××××××.org> posted
9 > >>> 494FE6D7.2060408@××××××××××××.org, excerpted below, on Mon, 22 Dec
10 > >>> 2008 14:13:27 -0500:
11 > >>>
12 > >>>> I've been updating my system after having some surgery and taking time
13 > >>>> off from everything and I've noticed a funny thing. Certain packages
14 > >>>> are requiring that I install v2.1.4.5 or portage (I'm running 2.1.6.2
15 > >>>> now) before updating the other packages. Why is that?
16 > >>> So you're saying they're asking you to downgrade? Do you have an
17 > >>> example and is it in the main tree or some overlay (which)?
18 > >
19 > >>> What I suspect is happening is that it's depending on a specific
20 > >>> portage version, say =2.1.4*, instead of a slot, which portage should
21 > >>> support everything at least in the main tree.
22 > >
23 > >> It seems anything java related and mplayer as well.
24 > >
25 > >> octavian ~ # emerge -uav ant-core
26 > >>
27 > >> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
28 > >>
29 > >> Calculating dependencies... done!
30 > >> [ebuild UD] sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.5 [2.1.6.2] USE="-build -doc
31 > >> -epydoc (-selinux)" LINGUAS="-pl" 0 kB *** Portage will stop merging at
32 > >> this point and reload itself,
33 > >> then resume the merge.
34 > >> [ebuild U ] dev-java/ant-core-1.7.1-r2 [1.7.0-r1] USE="-doc -source"
35 > >> 6,828 kB
36 > >>
37 > >> ---
38 > >> Calculating dependencies... done!
39 > >> [ebuild UD] sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.5 [2.1.6.2] USE="-build -doc
40 > >> -epydoc (-selinux)" LINGUAS="-pl" 0 kB [ebuild U ]
41 > >> dev-java/sun-jre-bin-1.6.0.11 [1.6.0.07] USE="X alsa (-nsplugin) -odbc"
42 > >> 0 kB
43 > >>
44 > >> ----
45 > >> [ebuild UD] sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.5 [2.1.6.2] USE="-build -doc
46 > >> -epydoc (-selinux)" LINGUAS="-pl" 0 kB [ebuild U ]
47 > >> media-video/mplayer-1.0_rc2_p28058-r1 [1.0_rc2_p27725-r1] USE="X a52 aac
48 > >> alsa arts ass%* dvd encode iconv ipv6 jpeg mad mmx mp3opengl png
49 > >
50 > > Hmm... I'm running the portage-2.2-rcs, unmasked as I had started using
51 > > the set dependencies before it was masked to get more ~arch testing for
52 > > 2.1.6*, and I don't see it trying to downgrade portage when I emerge -p
53 > > any of those here. So it's not a direct portage version issue.
54 > >
55 > > Do you happen to have a version of portage in either package.unmask or
56 > > package.keyword? You're normally running stable, right? Portage-2.1.6*
57 > > is keyworded ~arch, so if you're normally running stable but had 2.1.6*
58 > > for some reason and don't have it in package.keywords, that's why it's
59 > > trying to downgrade.
60 > >
61 >
62 > Well, I had the 2.2_rc series for a while so I could upgrade to KDE
63 > 4.1.3. Then, I moved to 2.1.6.2 when the 2.2 series was pulled from
64 > ~arch. I don't see anything in portage in particular in
65 > package.keywords or package.unmask about portage. I just manually
66 > updated to the ~arch version of portage (using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS from the
67 > CLI). Should I add portage to package.keywords to make this go away?
68 >
69 Probably. I've seen things like that with other packages.
70
71 Regards,
72 Ferris
73 --
74 Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o>
75 Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature