Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Daniel Campbell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 04/04/2015 01:09 PM, Thomas D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some of you maybe know or already have noticed that the
> net-firewall/shorewall* ebuilds were re-integrated into a new
> all-in-one ebuild for easier maintenance.
>
> The package is proxy-maintained.
>
> While preparing the new ebuild I discussed with the proxy-maint
> team and shorewall users if we should create a news item for that
> change. Most people participating in the discussion thought that
> emerge's error message like
>
>> # emerge -p --update net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo
>>
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild     U  ]
>> net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2::gentoo [4.5.21.10-r1::gentoo]
>> USE="doc init%* ipv4%* ipv6%* lite4%* -lite6%" 0 KiB [blocks B
>> ] net-firewall/shorewall-init ("net-firewall/shorewall-init" is
>> blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2) [blocks B      ]
>> net-firewall/shorewall-core ("net-firewall/shorewall-core" is
>> blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
>>
>> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 KiB Conflict:
>> 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)
>>
>> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have
>> been pulled !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot
>> conflict:
>>
>> net-firewall/shorewall:0
>>
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
>> merge) pulled in by net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo (Argument)
>>
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by =net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1 required by
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo,
>> installed) ^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>
>> It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask
>> to prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it
>> is also possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that
>> they are impossible to satisfy simultaneously.  If such a
>> conflict exists in the dependencies of two different packages,
>> then those packages can not be installed simultaneously. You may
>> want to try a larger value of the --backtrack option, such as
>> --backtrack=30, in order to see if that will solve this conflict
>> automatically.
>>
>> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
>> man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>>
>>
>> * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot
>> be * installed at the same time on the same system.
>>
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by net-firewall/shorewall-init required by @selected
>>
>> (net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>> pulled in by =net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1 required
>> by (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>>
>>
>> For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the
>> following section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture
>> is irrelevant):
>>
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages
>
>>
> should be clear enough for everyone.
>
>
> Well, it turns out that not everyone understands the merge conflict
> and knows what to do. Multiple users filled bugs and requested a
> news item, two recent examples:
>
> - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=544216#c2 -
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539664#c2
>
>
> As proxy-maintainer I changed my mind today and created a news
> item. Mostly because it doesn't hurt anyone (no negative impact).
> It only helps people who don't know what to do... and why shouldn't
> we help if we can?
>
> Please review my proposal below:
>
> Just a few notes to explain my choice of words:
>
> 1) The news item will tell the user what has changed and why this
> change was made. Interested users can read the bug report for
> further information.
>
> 2) The given emerge command should work on all systems for every
> user. No need to check which package in detail they need to
> remove. No error messages like "--- Couldn't find
> 'net-firewall/shorewall-lite' to unmerge." because they didn't have
> shorewall-lite installed.
>
> 3) The last paragraph should indicate that the new shorewall ebuild
> is "stable" and that they don't have to react immediately but
> within the next 30-60 days if they don't want to upgrade now.
>
>
> ===========================================================================
>
>
Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package
> Author: Thomas D. <whissi@××××××.de> Content-Type: text/plain
> Posted: 2015-04-<to-be-set> Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0
> Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-core
> Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6 Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall-lite Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall6-lite Display-If-Installed:
> net-firewall/shorewall-init
>
> Starting with net-firewall/shorewall-4.6 we have re-integrated
>
> - net-firewall/shorewall-core - net-firewall/shorewall6 -
> net-firewall/shorewall-lite - net-firewall/shorewall6-lite -
> net-firewall/shorewall-init
>
> into a new all-in-one net-firewall/shorewall ebuild (see bug
> 522278).
>
> The new all-in-one ebuild makes maintenance a lot more easier
> because the package is proxy-maintained and finding someone who is
> willing to help you bumping 6 packages each time you provide an
> update was not easy in the past.
>
> Because net-firewall/shorewall{-core,6,-lite,6-lite,init} is now
> integrated in net-firewall/shorewall, we have to hard mask these
> old ebuilds in the new monolithic ebuild to prevent file
> collisions.
>
> Due to this block we cannot migrate to the new version without
> user interaction. Please remove the previous split ebuilds from
> your system if you want to upgrade:
>
> $ emerge --ask --unmerge 'net-firewall/shorewall-*' \
> 'net-firewall/shorewall6*'
>
>
> Please note: Since the second shorewall-4.6 ebuild is now
> stabilized and shorewall-4.5 is not compatible with the perl-5.20
> (see bug 524558) we will start the removal process for
> shorewall-4.5 ebuilds within the next 30 days.
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
> -Thomas
>

As someone who runs shorewall on a VPS, the news item would be really
helpful when I get around to updating the packages for it so I don't
miss the blockage. I'm not a dev (yet) but this seems sane to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVIGsDAAoJEJUrb08JgYgHAOoH/iOtw2eUqDf4IRn8AhHudWGq
tVTwZJX04lfLyo1dXImRMJHG4cmMebSpzKQ0BrxcIrjQHpyUeXqSx6ksfZUmd/C6
sQSvcQyBpNGB37TI80JR2ljF8P7DLtagZKlcqhkvPxehKIm1PbmVavGzbqeJWMs9
9d3bcYFfNGLEroBuiw40d6196IhweqHybVdk9brKnu6npsXnsikuAWE9WIk3t3+S
zi2LO4T2wQgUtY3cB6ugq6nWlqQaZLy7KyXNFHqG5mKPU2qDBtMdNKx7Eau7rvKR
JgwVkp00/Sha5JhH55mHhmJ7jEULOdS67OjdWSDkDVzuocXmZ5w9hE8xlsUl72s=
=+i33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----