[gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[b.n.]

Hi,

It is probably a dumb blunder of mine, but it seems that there is 
something weird with glib on my world file.

emerge -pv world fails with:

---

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-libs/glib-2.16" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your 
request:
- dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
/usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
#
# <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
# glib-2.15 breaks some packages

- dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
- dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)

For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or
refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
(dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])

---

Now, I have a bunch of unmasked stuff in package.keywords, but I've 
*not* unmasked glibmm ~x86 or other glib related stuff. So why is a x86 
glibmm pulling down ~x86 stuff/why is an unstable glibmm being pulled 
down? By what?

By the way: I find the fact "emerge -pv" just fails in those cases 
extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending packages 
but let me see what can be happily merged independently of that?

m.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:39:21 +0200, b.n. wrote:

> emerge -pv world fails with:
> 
> ---
> 
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-libs/glib-2.16" have been
> masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to
> complete your request:
> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
> /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
> #
> # <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
> # glib-2.15 breaks some packages
> 
> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> 
> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> (dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])

Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

And God said, "I'll buy a vowel."

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[b.n.]

Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
>> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-libs/glib-2.16" have been
>> masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to
>> complete your request:
>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
>> /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
>> #
>> # <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
>> # glib-2.15 breaks some packages
>>
>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
>>
>> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
>> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>> (dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])
> 
> Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here.
> 

Synced and nothing changed.

Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage.

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Daniel Iliev]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200
"b.n." <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

> Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> >> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-libs/glib-2.16" have been
> >> masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to
> >> complete your request:
> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
> >> /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
> >> #
> >> # <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
> >> # glib-2.15 breaks some packages
> >>
> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> >>
> >> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> >> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> >> (dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])
> > 
> > Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here.
> > 
> 
> Synced and nothing changed.
> 
> Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage.
> 
> m.


Hi,

Perhaps you should try another mirror.
Here is what I get on a stable x86 system:


emerge -pv dev-libs/glib
[   R ] dev-libs/glib-2.16.3  USE="fam -debug -doc -hardened (-selinux)
-xattr" 



-- 
Best regards,
Daniel
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1274 bytes --]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200, b.n. wrote:

> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
> >> /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
> >> #
> >> # <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
> >> # glib-2.15 breaks some packages
> >>
> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> >> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
> >>
> >> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> >> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> >> (dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])  
> > 
> > Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here.
> >   
> 
> Synced and nothing changed.
> 
> Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage.

I've just read the message more carefully and seen the problem, I only
noticed the profiles/package.mask part, meaning it is masked in your
profile, not /etc/portage, and didn't look carefully at the full path.

This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's
nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party overlay
breaking things for you.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[b.n.]

Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200, b.n. wrote:
> 
>>>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask)
>>>> /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask:
>>>> #
>>>> # <jmbsviceto@gentoo.org> (9 February 2008)
>>>> # glib-2.15 breaks some packages
>>>>
>>>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
>>>> - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword)
>>>>
>>>> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
>>>> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>>>> (dependency required by "dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1" [ebuild])  
>>> Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here.
>>>   
>> Synced and nothing changed.
>>
>> Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage.
> 
> I've just read the message more carefully and seen the problem, I only
> noticed the profiles/package.mask part, meaning it is masked in your
> profile, not /etc/portage, and didn't look carefully at the full path.
> 
> This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's
> nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party overlay
> breaking things for you.

*slaps head with palm*
Thanks! How silly was I not reading that.

Now, what should I do? Ask to the desktop-effects guys? And *why* does 
an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal?

I'm confused.

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 598 bytes --]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:04:20 +0200, b.n. wrote:

> > This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's
> > nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party
> > overlay breaking things for you.  

> Now, what should I do? Ask to the desktop-effects guys?

Seems a reasonable question.

> And *why* does 
> an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal?

Because masking is global, the sum of all the package.mask files is
applied to the system as a whole.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Few women admit their age. Few men act theirs.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[b.n.]

Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
>> And *why* does 
>> an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal?
> 
> Because masking is global, the sum of all the package.mask files is
> applied to the system as a whole.

Yes, I know.
What I wondered, is if this is normal policy. It seems that an overlay 
messing with main portage tree is just asking for trouble.

But again, I'll ask to the overlay guys.

Thanks a lot as usual,

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote:
> By the way: I find the fact "emerge -pv" just fails in those cases
> extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending
> packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of
> that?

Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement, 
as how would you define a package that can "be happily merged 
independently" of a blocking package?

portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to 
answer that. I admit it's annoying though.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[brullo nulla]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote:
>> By the way: I find the fact "emerge -pv" just fails in those cases
>> extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending
>> packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of
>> that?
>
> Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement,
> as how would you define a package that can "be happily merged
> independently" of a blocking package?
>
> portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to
> answer that. I admit it's annoying though.

The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency tree.
For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm wants a masked glib.
Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, so it knows that
glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle give me what is to
update except for glibmm and glib - and give me the error about those
two.

Am I missing something?

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote:
> > Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to
> > implement, as how would you define a package that can "be happily
> > merged independently" of a blocking package?
> >
> > portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to
> > answer that. I admit it's annoying though.
>
> The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency
> tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm
> wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib,
> so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle
> give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me
> the error about those two.
>
> Am I missing something?

Probably not :-)

But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I 
suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are 
tricky edge cases?

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?

[b.n.]

Alan McKinnon ha scritto:
> On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote:
>> The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency
>> tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm
>> wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib,
>> so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle
>> give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me
>> the error about those two.
>>
>> Am I missing something?
> 
> Probably not :-)
> 
> But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I 
> suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are 
> tricky edge cases?

Maybe. It could be a toggable feature.
It is often said the current state of Portage code is quite messy. I 
don't know, never read it. I'd like to contribute them a bit (I know 
some Python) but if experienced Portage developers are in fear of 
touching code, I wouldn't probably be of help.

I wonder if Paludis does what I say. Could it be the day I switch...

(If only there was a Python portage replacement... a Portage-ng project?)

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list