[gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[Mark Knecht]

Hi,
   Portage wants to downgrade MySQL on my PC. This appears to be due
to a revision being removed from portage:

lightning ~ # emerge -pvDuN world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating world dependencies... done!
<SNIP>
[ebuild     UD] dev-db/mysql-4.0.27 [4.1.20] USE="berkdb perl ssl
-big-tables -debug -embedded -minimal -raid -srvdir -static" 10,895 kB

<SNIP>

lightning ~ # eix -I mysql
* dev-db/mysql
     Available versions:  !3.23.58-r1 4.0.25-r2 4.0.27 [M]4.1.21
[M]5.0.24-r1 [M]5.1.7_beta
     Installed:           4.1.20
     Homepage:            http://www.mysql.com/
     Description:         A fast, multi-threaded, multi-user SQL
database server.

   However, I don't want it changed right now as the other machines on
the network are still running 4.1.20 and I would like them to all stay
identical.

   At least for the short term how can I tell portage not to touch
MySQL? (package.provided maybe?)

Thanks,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[kashani]

Mark Knecht wrote:

> lightning ~ # eix -I mysql
> * dev-db/mysql
>     Available versions:  !3.23.58-r1 4.0.25-r2 4.0.27 [M]4.1.21
> [M]5.0.24-r1 [M]5.1.7_beta
>     Installed:           4.1.20
>     Homepage:            http://www.mysql.com/
>     Description:         A fast, multi-threaded, multi-user SQL
> database server.
> 
>   However, I don't want it changed right now as the other machines on
> the network are still running 4.1.20 and I would like them to all stay
> identical.
> 
>   At least for the short term how can I tell portage not to touch
> MySQL? (package.provided maybe?)

That's pretty odd. The Changelog shows 4.1.21 stabilized on Aug 4. 
4.1.20 was pulled on Aug 31. My boxes all show 4.1.21 as being valid 
though I'm actually running 5.0.x on everything.

I'd sync again and see if it goes away.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[Richard Fish]

On 9/8/06, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> I sort of have a problem with this. Maybe the info is in the change
> logs?

Yes, you really should read the ChangeLog if you want anwers to such
questions.  Looks like  4.1.21 was stabilized to solve a security bug
[1] [2].

> up with 4.1.20 I think it must have been marked stable. Why did folks
> mark it stable and then completely remove it when 4.1.21 came along,
> but we continue to have older versions like 4.0.27?

Versions older than 4.1 are not affected by the security bug, so there
was no need to remove them.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200608-09.xml
[2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142429

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

Re: [gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/8/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> On 9/8/06, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I sort of have a problem with this. Maybe the info is in the change
> > logs?
>
> Yes, you really should read the ChangeLog if you want anwers to such
> questions.  Looks like  4.1.21 was stabilized to solve a security bug
> [1] [2].
>
> > up with 4.1.20 I think it must have been marked stable. Why did folks
> > mark it stable and then completely remove it when 4.1.21 came along,
> > but we continue to have older versions like 4.0.27?
>
> Versions older than 4.1 are not affected by the security bug, so there
> was no need to remove them.
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/security/en/glsa/glsa-200608-09.xml
> [2] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142429
>
> -Richard

Thanks Richard.

I know the Gentoo security focus is important. However it still seems
to me that there must be a better way to do this than essentially
ripping it out of my system by deleting the ebuild.  Making a
worldwide security decision seems quite draconian when it's just me,
my wife and son watching MythTV. Why can't the ebuild be left on my
machine in some location so that the machine remains unaltered until I
decide it's worth dealing with?

Anyway, thanks for the info.

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 558 bytes --]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:36:57 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

>  Why can't the ebuild be left on my
> machine in some location so that the machine remains unaltered until I
> decide it's worth dealing with?

The ebuild is on your machine, in /var/db/pkg/category/package-version/
Copy it to your overlay and portage will stop complaining.

Or you could let portage perform the minor update. It's only a revision
level change, most likely just a fix for the security issue.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Bother", said Pooh, as he crossed the event horizon.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] package removed from portage question

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/8/06, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:36:57 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> >  Why can't the ebuild be left on my
> > machine in some location so that the machine remains unaltered until I
> > decide it's worth dealing with?
>
> The ebuild is on your machine, in /var/db/pkg/category/package-version/
> Copy it to your overlay and portage will stop complaining.
>
> Or you could let portage perform the minor update. It's only a revision
> level change, most likely just a fix for the security issue.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>

Thanks Neil. This is what I eventually did.

Now in the first stages of the gcc-4.1.1 update on my AMD64 machine.
Wish me luck. It needs to be happy by Monday morning.

Cheers,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list