[gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Alan McKinnon]

I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable:

!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy
">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]"
has unmet requirements.
- net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman
-networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6"

  The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
    exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager )



USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is
farstream.

Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
want no nw manager at all)

So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?

Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]

On Sunday 15 Jun 2014 00:31:25 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable:
> 
> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy
> ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mi
> ps_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]" has unmet requirements.
> - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman
> -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
> -python2_6"
> 
>   The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
>     exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager )
> 
> 
> 
> USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is
> farstream.
> 
> Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
> Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
> want no nw manager at all)
> 
> So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
> causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?
> 
> Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?

I think (didn't look into it at any depth) that pidgin draws in net-
libs/libnice (because of XMPP?) and libnice has the upnp flag which draws in 
net-libs/gupnp-igd.  I unmerged gupnp and this is what I get:

# emerge -uaDtv world

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

Calculating dependencies... done!
[nomerge       ] net-im/pidgin-2.10.9-r1  USE="dbus gstreamer gtk ncurses nls 
spell xscreensaver (-aqua) -debug -doc -eds -gadu -gnutls -groupwise -idn -
meanwhile -mxit -networkmanager -perl -prediction -python -sasl -silc -tcl -tk 
-zephyr -zeroconf" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_2 -python3_3" 
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_2" 
[nomerge       ]  net-libs/farsight2-0.0.31  USE="-msn -python -upnp" 
[nomerge       ]   net-libs/libnice-0.1.4  USE="upnp" 
[nomerge       ]    net-libs/gupnp-igd-0.2.2-r1  USE="introspection -python" 
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7" 
[ebuild  N     ]     net-libs/gupnp-0.20.10:0/4  USE="connman introspection -
networkmanager" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 (-python2_6)" 0 kB

Interestingly, I do *not* have farsight installed, but I had installed connman 
to try it with enlightenment (econnman).

[I] net-misc/connman

     Installed versions:  1.21(13:45:57 03/08/14)(bluetooth ethernet policykit 
wifi -debug -doc -examples -ofono -openconnect -openvpn -tools -vpnc)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 01:31:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
> Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
> want no nw manager at all)
> 
> So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
> causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?
> 
> Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?

I see two separate issues here. If you re going to depend on a network
manager, there should be a virtual - networkmanager, connman, wicd, openrc
and systemd all have that capability.

Secondly, I agree with you that there seems no need to require a network
manager just to use a networked service. After all, people use IM on
desktop computers with wired connections. What matters is that you have a
network connection, not the mechanics used to set it up.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, give up. No use being a damn fool.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable:
>
> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy
> ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]"
> has unmet requirements.
> - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman
> -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6"
>
>   The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
>     exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager )
>
>
>
> USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is
> farstream.
>
> Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
> Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
> want no nw manager at all)
>
> So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
> causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?
>
> Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?
>

I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error.

REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been
REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )".

The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter
requires that at most one flag may be enabled.

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Alan McKinnon]

On 15/06/2014 20:27, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable:
>>
>> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy
>> ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]"
>> has unmet requirements.
>> - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman
>> -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6"
>>
>>   The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
>>     exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager )
>>
>>
>>
>> USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is
>> farstream.
>>
>> Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
>> Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
>> want no nw manager at all)
>>
>> So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
>> causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?
>>
>> Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?
>>
> 
> I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error.
> 
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been
> REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )".
> 
> The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter
> requires that at most one flag may be enabled.
> 
> 
> 


You are probably correct, I filed a bug:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513310

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are probably correct, I filed a bug:
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=513310
>

Yes, and I responded to and fixed it earlier in the day. I was just
updating the list for those who care. ^_^

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Sunday 15 Jun 2014 19:27:18 Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > I'm at a loss to explain why this is a good idea or desirable:
> > 
> > !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy
> > ">=net-libs/gupnp-0.18[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_
> > mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?]" has unmet requirements.
> > - net-libs/gupnp-0.20.12-r1::gentoo USE="introspection -connman
> > -networkmanager" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
> > -python2_6"
> > 
> >   The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
> >     exactly-one-of ( connman networkmanager )
> > 
> > USE="upnp" is pulling this in, the major user of that flag here is
> > farstream.
> > 
> > Maybe I want farstream. Maybe I want upnp for it.
> > Maybe I don't care for connman or networkmanager (I use wicd, some users
> > want no nw manager at all)
> > 
> > So, what is the sense behind a feature of an instant messenger framework
> > causing me to decide between two undesirable connection managers?
> > 
> > Anyone see some valid logic that I miss?
> 
> I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error.
> 
> REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been
> REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )".
> 
> The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter
> requires that at most one flag may be enabled.

Why "at most one flag may be enabled"?  What if *both* connman and 
networkmanager are installed in a system?  Will emerge error out?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 719 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Mick wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error.
> > 
> > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been
> > REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )".
> > 
> > The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter
> > requires that at most one flag may be enabled.  
> 
> Why "at most one flag may be enabled"?  What if *both* connman and 
> networkmanager are installed in a system?  Will emerge error out?

It's not saying you can't have both installed, only that you cannot have
both USE flags in force for that particular package.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Famed tautologist dies of suicide in distressing tragedy

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] gupnp enforces connman || networkmanager

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 760 bytes --]

On Monday 16 Jun 2014 00:23:15 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:55:09 +0100, Mick wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure this was a simple developer error.
> > > 
> > > REQUIRED_USE="^^ ( connman networkmanager )" should have been
> > > REQUIRED_USE="?? ( connman networkmanager )".
> > > 
> > > The former requires that exactly one flag be enabled. The latter
> > > requires that at most one flag may be enabled.
> > 
> > Why "at most one flag may be enabled"?  What if *both* connman and
> > networkmanager are installed in a system?  Will emerge error out?
> 
> It's not saying you can't have both installed, only that you cannot have
> both USE flags in force for that particular package.

I got it now.  Thanks!

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]