[gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Tanstaafl]

Ok, I don't understand this...

Why is it that when I comment out the package.mask entries for udev:

#>=sys-fs/udev-181
#>=virtual/udev-181

emerge -pvuND world shows updates to udev-197, with no mention of 
udev-200, but...

when I uncomment them:

 >=sys-fs/udev-181
 >=virtual/udev-181

emerge -pvuDN world shows updates to BOTH virtual/udev-197-r2 *and* 
udev-200, with strange Blockers referencing udev-186???

> [ebuild     U #] sys-fs/udev-200 [171-r10] USE="acl%* firmware-loader%* kmod%* openrc%* -doc% -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap (-selinux) -static-libs% (-action_modeswitch%) (-build%) (-debug%) (-edd%) (-extras%) (-floppy%) (-rule_generator%*) (-test%)" 2,063 kB
> [ebuild     U #] virtual/udev-197-r2 [171] USE="kmod -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap (-selinux) -static-libs" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N    ~] sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-25  5 kB
...
> [blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-25)
> [blocks B      ] sys-apps/module-init-tools ("sys-apps/module-init-tools" is blocking sys-apps/kmod-12-r1)
> [blocks B      ] sys-apps/kmod ("sys-apps/kmod" is blocking sys-apps/module-init-tools-3.16-r2)

followed by a whole bunch of new warnings:

> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
>
> virtual/udev:0
>
>   (virtual/udev-171::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot)
>
>   (virtual/udev-197-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>     >=virtual/udev-197-r1 required by (sys-fs/udev-200::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>     (and 2 more with the same problem)
>
> sys-fs/udev:0
>
>   (sys-fs/udev-171-r10::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     ~sys-fs/udev-171[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?] required by (virtual/udev-171::gentoo, installed)
>
>   (sys-fs/udev-200::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>     >=sys-fs/udev-197-r8[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,kmod?,selinux?,static-libs?] required by (virtual/udev-197-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>
>
> 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.
>
> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>
>
> The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
>  (see "package.accept_keywords" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
> # required by sys-fs/udev-200[openrc]
> # required by virtual/udev-197-r2
> # required by sys-apps/hwids-20130329[udev]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> =sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-25 ~amd64
> # required by virtual/udev-197-r2
> # required by sys-apps/hwids-20130329[udev]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> =sys-fs/udev-200 ~amd64
>
> The following mask changes are necessary to proceed:
>  (see "package.unmask" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
> # required by sys-fs/udev-200
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> # /etc/portage/package.mask:
> #>=dev-db/mariadb-5.2
> #<=dev-lang/php-5.4
> =virtual/udev-197-r2
> # required by virtual/udev-197-r2
> # required by sys-apps/hwids-20130329[udev]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> # /etc/portage/package.mask:
> #>=dev-db/mariadb-5.2
> #<=dev-lang/php-5.4
> =sys-fs/udev-200
>
> NOTE: The --autounmask-keep-masks option will prevent emerge
>       from creating package.unmask or ** keyword changes.


That seems bizarre...

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 454 bytes --]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:24:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> Why is it that when I comment out the package.mask entries for udev:
> 
> #>=sys-fs/udev-181
> #>=virtual/udev-181  
> 
> emerge -pvuND world shows updates to udev-197, with no mention of 
> udev-200, but...

Because you're running stable? Versions higher than 197-r8 are still in
testing.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Meow" <SPLAT!>  "Woof" <SPLAT!>    Jeez, it's really raining today.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-03-30 12:42 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 11:24:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Why is it that when I comment out the package.mask entries for udev:
>>
>> #>=sys-fs/udev-181
>> #>=virtual/udev-181
>>
>> emerge -pvuND world shows updates to udev-197, with no mention of
>> udev-200, but...
>
> Because you're running stable? Versions higher than 197-r8 are still in
> testing.

Right... hence my question... why if I comment out those lines do I now 
see all of these other weird updates for udev-200?

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Mark David Dumlao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 3041 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 12:49:52 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> >> emerge -pvuND world shows updates to udev-197, with no mention of
> >> udev-200, but...  
> >
> > Because you're running stable? Versions higher than 197-r8 are still
> > in testing.  
> 
> Right... hence my question... why if I comment out those lines do I now 
> see all of these other weird updates for udev-200?

--tree should show what is asking for a later udev. Either you are
running some testing packages or you have found a bug.

-- 
Neil Bothwick

Windows booting: insert CD-ROM 2.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 646 bytes --]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 18:46:43 +0000, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > > Because you're running stable? Versions higher than 197-r8 are still
> > > in testing.    
> > 
> > Right... hence my question... why if I comment out those lines do I
> > now see all of these other weird updates for udev-200?  
> 
> --tree should show what is asking for a later udev. Either you are
> running some testing packages or you have found a bug.

I've just synced again and udev-200 has gone stable.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Procedure: (n.) a method of performing a program sub-task in an
inefficient way by extensively using the stack instead of a GOTO.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] udev-197 vs udev-200??

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-03-30 1:22 PM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/30/2013 11:24 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Ok, I don't understand this...
<snip>
> emerge -pvuDN world shows updates to BOTH virtual/udev-197-r2 *and*
>> udev-200, with strange Blockers referencing udev-186???

> My reading is: there are some packages either in your tree or being
> pulled in that require a later version of udev. So even if you mask
> udev-197, it's still being pulled in by something else.

Thanks, but actually, I had just forgotten that 171-r10 is no longer in 
portage.

So, now I'm trying to figure out how to convert my quickpkg of it to an 
ebuild I can add to my local overlay...