From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ll9iR-0000T5-5z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:30:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2F736E05E8; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A95FE05E8 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:30:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fire-doxen.imss.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fire-doxen-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B5E2E505DC for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:30:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Scanned: at Caltech-IMSS on fire-doxen by amavisd-new Received: from [131.215.168.112] (DHCP-168-112.caltech.edu [131.215.168.112]) (Authenticated sender: nfortino) by fire-doxen-ssl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966452E5066B for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:30:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49C56A1C.6090206@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:28:44 -0700 From: Nick Fortino User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] resolving this block References: <20090321211752.GC27682@anton.digitaltorque.ca> <49C55C66.4050200@gmail.com> <20090321220210.GE27682@anton.digitaltorque.ca> In-Reply-To: <20090321220210.GE27682@anton.digitaltorque.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 96823432-eb88-43a3-ade5-53bb6eb1261d X-Archives-Hash: f07389bdd0937df34928edb194f39230 Michael P. Soulier wrote: > On 21/03/09 Nick Fortino said: > > >> It seems like you are reading the message correctly, but you are focusing >> on the wrong part. The problem here is gail, not gtk+. What should happen >> is gail-1000 is installed as part of this upgrade, and then the block is >> resolved. The output of "equery list -p gail" should tell you if gail-1000 >> is masked for some reason. Unmasking gail-1000 should resolve the block, >> but why it is masked in the first place is rather a mystery. >> > > msoulier@anton:~$ equery list -p gail > [ Searching for package 'gail' in all categories among: ] > * installed packages > [I--] [ ] gnome-base/gail-1.22.3 (0) > * Portage tree (/usr/portage) > [-P-] [ ] gnome-base/gail-1.20.2 (0) > [-P-] [ ] gnome-base/gail-1000 (0) > [-P-] [ ] gnome-extra/libgail-gnome-1.20.0 (0) > [-P-] [ ] gnome-extra/libgail-gnome-1.20.1 (0) > > I don't think it's masked. > > Shouldn't the newer gtk+ flag the fact that it obsoletes the need for gail? > > Mike > Hmm, that's odd. gtk+ does flag the fact that it includes gail with the block you are running into, and gail-1000 is used to make programs which depend on gail happy. emerge -uDN world should really just take care of this, as gail should be upgraded to gail-1000. At the end of the day, Daniel is right, unmerging gail should resolve the block, and everything should work when you are done upgrading. Portage should (and did for me) take care of this on it's own though. Nick