From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445C11392EF for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:34:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A7C3EE0A60; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:34:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD574E099F for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [124.78.104.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 790AD340270 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 12:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <53B2AABB.9030502@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 20:34:03 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Docker 1.0.0 masked for no known reason? References: <20140629025822.GB22414@kroah.com> <20140629101222.0a8205ed@gentoo.org> <1850798.4K95jJtFKj@localhost> <1867928.PVtiAeD6pB@localhost> <53AFDD6E.1070601@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <53AFDD6E.1070601@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 09889d94-dbf1-4ed1-beb6-4cb34c45cc19 X-Archives-Hash: b03a45bdba3921e403e3260450353e48 On 06/29/14 17:33, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 06/29/2014 10:23 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: >> On Sunday 29 June 2014 17:03:52 Patrick Lauer wrote: >>> On Sunday 29 June 2014 10:12:22 Tom Wijsman wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2014 09:09:36 +0100 >>>> >>>> Markos Chandras wrote: >>>>> It's been a long time. To be honest I don't remember masking docker >>>>> but I most likely did it because I was asked to mask >=lxc-1.0.0 by >>>>> the virtualization team (and Diego (flameeyes). And docker depends on >>>>> lxc-1.0.0 according to the ebuild. But now that you have unmasked >>>>> docker, i think the deptree will be broken since lxc is still masked. >>>> >>>> Repoman is monitored; therefore, someone from the QA team or so has >>>> probably masked Docker. Given that broken dependency tree again it is >>>> likely to happen again. So, please set it up a satisfiable state. :) >>> >>> AutoRepoman :) >>> >>> So that was me fixing the depgraph, taking the easy way out of adding an >>> unsatisfiable package to an existing related package.mask. >>> >>> If people can't be bothered to even run repoman full or commit without >>> --force they'll get annoyed by my corrections - maybe it has an educational >>> effect ;) >>> >>> Have fun, >>> >>> Patrick >> >> Tadaah: >> >> dependency.bad 22 >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/gnome) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/gnome/systemd) ['>=app- >> emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde/systemd) ['>=app- >> emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/developer) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/no-multilib) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/no-multilib/selinux) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.0.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/selinux) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/gnome) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/gnome/systemd) ['>=app- >> emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/desktop/kde/systemd) ['>=app- >> emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(default/linux/amd64/13.0/developer) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/no-multilib) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/no-multilib/selinux) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> app-emulation/docker/docker-1.0.1.ebuild: RDEPEND: >> ~amd64(hardened/linux/amd64/selinux) ['>=app-emulation/lxc-1.0'] >> >> > > Yeah, lets wait for Greg or Tianon to reply and if docker+lxc works for > them we can unmask lxc. > Well, since apparently no one cares about having satisfiable dependencies I just unmasked lxc so that the already-unmasked docker is happy. I have no idea why people enjoy breaking things so much, but at least it won't get boring for me!