[gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Dmitry S. Makovey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 348 bytes --]


For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp 
I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week 
it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does 
anybody know what might trigger this behavior?

-- 
Dmitry Makovey
Web Systems Administrator
Athabasca University
(780) 675-6245

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Mauro Faccenda]

Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp 
> I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week 
> it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does 
> anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
> 

This is because gnumeric REQUIRES =1.10.0... and when you do a -uD it
will be upgraded.

You should keep using -uNp instead of -uDNp ;)

[]'s
	Mauro
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Dmitry S. Makovey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On July 18, 2005 09:34 am, Mauro Faccenda wrote:
> Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> > For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge
> > -uDNp I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is
> > one week it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to
> > another. Does anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
>
> This is because gnumeric REQUIRES =1.10.0... and when you do a -uD
> it will be upgraded.
>
> You should keep using -uNp instead of -uDNp ;)

looks like it's the case here.... except that I like my -uDNp as 
system became bit more stable since I started using "D" and every 
time I upgrade it picks up everything I need and I didn't have to ask 
it twice :) Oh well, maybe "-D" is a minor drawback and I can survive 
occasional rebuild of libgsf :) 

Thanks a lot for the tip.. it all makes sense now. At least I know now 
what's going on.

-- 
Dmitry Makovey
Web Systems Administrator
Athabasca University
(780) 675-6245

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Tero Grundström]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Mauro Faccenda wrote:

> Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
>> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp
>> I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week
>> it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does
>> anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
>>
>
> This is because gnumeric REQUIRES =1.10.0... and when you do a -uD it
> will be upgraded.
>
> You should keep using -uNp instead of -uDNp ;)

I wouldn't throw away -uDNp just because of this.

On my system there are only two packages that depend on libgsf:

gnumeric =gnome-extra/libgsf-1.10*
librsvg  >=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.6

So librsvg can survive with an libgsf version as old as 1.6.

My solution has been adding these lines to /etc/portage/package.mask:
=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0
=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.1

Ofcourse I could also use >=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0, but I prefer to be 
notified if there is a new version available.


--
T.G.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Dmitry S. Makovey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 979 bytes --]

On July 18, 2005 11:23 am, Tero Grundström wrote:
> > This is because gnumeric REQUIRES =1.10.0... and when you do a
> > -uD it will be upgraded.
> >
> > You should keep using -uNp instead of -uDNp ;)
>
> I wouldn't throw away -uDNp just because of this.
>
> On my system there are only two packages that depend on libgsf:
>
> gnumeric =gnome-extra/libgsf-1.10*
> librsvg  >=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.6
>
> So librsvg can survive with an libgsf version as old as 1.6.
>
> My solution has been adding these lines to
> /etc/portage/package.mask: =gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0
> =gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.1

I would lean towards abovementioned solution as it is 1) gentoo-way :) 
2) is not destructive and if something requires higher version of 
libgsf it'll complain about masked package and I can deal with it 
then. 

Thanks for usefull tip... Live and learn as they say :)

-- 
Dmitry Makovey
Web Systems Administrator
Athabasca University
(780) 675-6245

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Rumen Yotov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:

>For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp 
>I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week 
>it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does 
>anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
>
>  
>
Hi,
At least two packages depend on libgsf so when one wants to ungrade it
"wants" version 1.10.0 while the other depends on: >=libgsf-1.12.0, but
that's only one scenario. Try "emerge -DNu world -ptv" (see -t | --tree
option).
Maybe the newest libgsf is 1.12.0 while some app depends only on a lower
version: 1.10.0 also possible.
Check w/o "-D|--deep" option for second case.
HTH. Rumen

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3397 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Zac Medico]

Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp 
> I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week 
> it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does 
> anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
> 

There's a portage bug that fits that description: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13632.  When I encounter this I simply package mask the lower versions.

mkdir /etc/portage
echo "<gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0" >> /etc/portage/package.mask

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Tero Grundström]

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Zac Medico wrote:

> Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
>> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge -uDNp I've 
>> noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one week it's 1.12.0 
>> another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. Does anybody know what 
>> might trigger this behavior?
>> 
>
> There's a portage bug that fits that description: 
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13632.  When I encounter this I simply 
> package mask the lower versions.
>
> mkdir /etc/portage
> echo "<gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0" >> /etc/portage/package.mask

That is not the correct way as this bug is caused by packages not 
functioning correctly with *newer* versions. In this case gnumeric doesn't 
like libgsf versions above 1.10.

If you think gnumeric does work well with the newest version of libgsf and 
that the package maintainer is setting wrongly the dependency version, 
please file a bug.

--
T.G.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Zac Medico]

Tero Grundström wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Zac Medico wrote:
> 
>> Dmitry S. Makovey wrote:
>>
>>> For past couple of weeks as I was doing emerge --sync and emerge 
>>> -uDNp I've noticed that libgsf has "jumping" versions. That is one 
>>> week it's 1.12.0 another 1.10.0 and it swings from one to another. 
>>> Does anybody know what might trigger this behavior?
>>>
>>
>> There's a portage bug that fits that description: 
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13632.  When I encounter this I 
>> simply package mask the lower versions.
>>
>> mkdir /etc/portage
>> echo "<gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0" >> /etc/portage/package.mask
> 
> 
> That is not the correct way as this bug is caused by packages not 
> functioning correctly with *newer* versions. In this case gnumeric 
> doesn't like libgsf versions above 1.10.
> 
> If you think gnumeric does work well with the newest version of libgsf 
> and that the package maintainer is setting wrongly the dependency 
> version, please file a bug.
> 

Okay, my mistake.  Actually, now that you mention it, it turns out that I edited the ebuild myself to have RDEPEND=">=gnome-extra/libgsf-1.10" in my overlay.  I'm not sure whether or not it causes negative consequences but since I rarely (if ever) use gnumeric, I'm not presently concerned ;-).

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] libgsf weirdness...

[Dmitry S. Makovey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On July 18, 2005 12:21 pm, Zac Medico wrote:
> mkdir /etc/portage
> echo "<gnome-extra/libgsf-1.12.0" >> /etc/portage/package.mask

that would actually produce negative effects on gnumeric so I'd rather 
do as other post (by Tero) suggests: mask higher version as no 
package is requiring it anyway. But thanks for stepping in the 
discussion :)

-- 
Dmitry Makovey
Web Systems Administrator
Athabasca University
(780) 675-6245

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]