[gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Dirk Uys]

Hi

I'm running a stable gentoo installation and getting a block on vmware-player:
[ebuild     U ] app-emulation/vmware-player-2.5.0.118166
[2.0.5.109488] 61,559 kB
[ebuild  N    ] app-emulation/vmware-modules-1.0.0.23  478 kB
[blocks B     ] >=app-emulation/vmware-modules-1.0.0.23 (is blocking
app-emulation/vmware-player-2.0.5.109488)

I have the following in /etc/package.keyworkds/vmware-player

<file /etc/package.keyworkds/vmware-player>
app-emulation/vmware-player ~amd64
app-emulation/vmware-modules ~amd64
dev-cpp/libsexymm ~amd64
x11-libs/libview ~amd64
</file>

Is this just a consequence of mixing stable and unstable, or is there
a way I can get around this?

Regards
Dirk

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1256 bytes --]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:38:05 +0200, Dirk Uys wrote:

> I'm running a stable gentoo installation and getting a block on
> vmware-player: [ebuild     U ] app-emulation/vmware-player-2.5.0.118166
> [2.0.5.109488] 61,559 kB
> [ebuild  N    ] app-emulation/vmware-modules-1.0.0.23  478 kB
> [blocks B     ] >=app-emulation/vmware-modules-1.0.0.23 (is blocking
> app-emulation/vmware-player-2.0.5.109488)
> 
> I have the following in /etc/package.keyworkds/vmware-player
> 
> <file /etc/package.keyworkds/vmware-player>
> app-emulation/vmware-player ~amd64
> app-emulation/vmware-modules ~amd64
> dev-cpp/libsexymm ~amd64
> x11-libs/libview ~amd64
> </file>
> 
> Is this just a consequence of mixing stable and unstable, or is there
> a way I can get around this?

Each vmware package depends on a specific modules version. In order to
update vmware-player, you must first update vmware-modules,but that
version is blocked by the existing player. There are two alternatives

Unmerge vmware-player then reemerge it.
Upgrade to the latest portage, which handles these blocks for you.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

BBS: (n.) a system for connecting computers and exchanging gossip,
     facts, and uninformed speculation under false names.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Dirk Uys]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Each vmware package depends on a specific modules version. In order to
> update vmware-player, you must first update vmware-modules,but that
> version is blocked by the existing player. There are two alternatives
>
> Unmerge vmware-player then reemerge it.
> Upgrade to the latest portage, which handles these blocks for you.
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick

Thanks, problem fixed.

ps. Will it be ok if I upgrade portage to an unstable version while
running a stable portage tree?

Regards
Dirk

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Dale]

Dirk Uys wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:01 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>   
>> Each vmware package depends on a specific modules version. In order to
>> update vmware-player, you must first update vmware-modules,but that
>> version is blocked by the existing player. There are two alternatives
>>
>> Unmerge vmware-player then reemerge it.
>> Upgrade to the latest portage, which handles these blocks for you.
>>
>> --
>> Neil Bothwick
>>     
>
>
> ps. Will it be ok if I upgrade portage to an unstable version while
> running a stable portage tree?
>
> Regards
> Dirk
>
>
>   

Yep.

Dale

:-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:13:23 +0200, Dirk Uys wrote:

> ps. Will it be ok if I upgrade portage to an unstable version while

It's not unstable, it's testing.

> running a stable portage tree?

There's no such thing. There is one portage tree with different ARCH
settings for individual ebuilds. Some of the testing ebuilds require a
later portage,so once you start running a mixed system, you may have to
switch to portage 2.2, or paludis.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Bother," said Pooh, more from force of habit than anything else.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Nicolas Sebrecht]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:14:44AM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:

>                                  Some of the testing ebuilds require a
> later portage

Why ?

I'm running a mixed system here with sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.4 without
any problem¹. What kind of changes in ebuilds explains the use of portage
v2.2 ? Is there a caution somewhere ?

I don't really like the idea of running a testing portage version on
some systems.

1. Not synced for one months (checked with the timestamp marked in
'grep -i sync /var/log/emerge.log |tail')

-- 
Nicolas Sebrecht

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 406 bytes --]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:40:29 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:

> >                                  Some of the testing ebuilds require a
> > later portage  
> 
> Why ?

Because some of them require a later EAPI than portage 2.1 provides.
You'll be told if you try to install such a package. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Asking whether machines can think is like asking whether submarines can
swim.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] vwmare-player block

[Michael Moore]

On 12:40 Thu 13 Nov     , Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:14:44AM +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> 
> >                                  Some of the testing ebuilds require a
> > later portage
> 
> Why ?
> 
> I'm running a mixed system here with sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.4 without
> any problem¹. What kind of changes in ebuilds explains the use of portage
> v2.2 ? Is there a caution somewhere ?

Yes, the caution will appear for a package that needs EAPI2. For example,
latest ebuild of smplayer(IIRC) and KDE-4 need it.

> I don't really like the idea of running a testing portage version on
> some systems.

Well, if you run a mixed system it should not be much trouble. Works
fine here, have been using it for a couple of weeks.

Also, the automatic block handling feature of the testing vesion is worth
trying.

-- 

Regards,
Michael Moore <mikem.unet(at)gmail.com>
About *NIX: If its not fun, why do it?