[gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Mark Knecht]

Hi,
   I have a machine I haven't touched in about 6 months that I need to
update. I've got one block that tells me (correctly) that it's part of
system. It should be as I'm updating system.

   Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
system emerge, correct?

   I have already done an emerge -f and fetched everything that will be built.

Thanks,
Mark

MacMini ~ # emerge -pvDuN system

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

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123 [20070724] 0 kB [?=>0]
[ebuild     U ] app-arch/lzma-utils-4.32.7 [4.32.5] USE="-nocxx%" 0 kB [?=>0]
<SNIP>
[ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/man-pages-posix-2003a  0 kB [0]
[ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1  USE="nls" 0 kB [0]
[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.14.1 [2.13.1] USE="crypt nls
unicode -loop-aes -old-linux (-selinux) -slang (-uclibc)" 0 kB [0]
[ebuild     U ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41.3 [1.40.4] USE="nls (-static%)" 0 kB [0]
[blocks b     ] <sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41 ("<sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41" is
blocking sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1)

Total: 48 packages (44 upgrades, 2 new, 1 in new slot, 1 reinstall),
Size of downloads: 0 kB
Conflict: 1 block
Portage tree and overlays:
 [0] /usr/portage
 [?] indicates that the source repository could not be determined
MacMini ~ # emerge -Cp e2fsprogs

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:


!!! 'sys-fs/e2fsprogs' is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.


 sys-fs/e2fsprogs
    selected: 1.40.4
   protected: none
     omitted: none

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

MacMini ~ #

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:

>    Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
> system emerge, correct?
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123 [20070724] 0 kB [?=>0]
> [ebuild     U ] app-arch/lzma-utils-4.32.7 [4.32.5] USE="-nocxx%" 0 kB
> [?=>0] <SNIP>
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/man-pages-posix-2003a  0 kB [0]
> [ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1  USE="nls" 0 kB [0]
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.14.1 [2.13.1] USE="crypt nls
> unicode -loop-aes -old-linux (-selinux) -slang (-uclibc)" 0 kB [0]
> [ebuild     U ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41.3 [1.40.4] USE="nls (-static%)" 0
> kB [0] [blocks b     ] <sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41 ("<sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41"
> is blocking sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1)

You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block for
you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by recent
portage releases.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Q. Why did the koala fall out of the tree?
A. It was dead.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>>    Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
>> system emerge, correct?
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123 [20070724] 0 kB [?=>0]
>> [ebuild     U ] app-arch/lzma-utils-4.32.7 [4.32.5] USE="-nocxx%" 0 kB
>> [?=>0] <SNIP>
>> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/man-pages-posix-2003a  0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1  USE="nls" 0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.14.1 [2.13.1] USE="crypt nls
>> unicode -loop-aes -old-linux (-selinux) -slang (-uclibc)" 0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41.3 [1.40.4] USE="nls (-static%)" 0
>> kB [0] [blocks b     ] <sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41 ("<sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41"
>> is blocking sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1)
>
> You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block for
> you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by recent
> portage releases.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick

Really? Cool!

Thanks Neil.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Geralt]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:24:33 -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>>    Anyway, it is OK to remove this block and then proceed with the
>> system emerge, correct?
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-devel/gnuconfig-20080123 [20070724] 0 kB [?=>0]
>> [ebuild     U ] app-arch/lzma-utils-4.32.7 [4.32.5] USE="-nocxx%" 0 kB
>> [?=>0] <SNIP>
>> [ebuild  N    ] sys-apps/man-pages-posix-2003a  0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild  N    ] sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1  USE="nls" 0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.14.1 [2.13.1] USE="crypt nls
>> unicode -loop-aes -old-linux (-selinux) -slang (-uclibc)" 0 kB [0]
>> [ebuild     U ] sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41.3 [1.40.4] USE="nls (-static%)" 0
>> kB [0] [blocks b     ] <sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41 ("<sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.41"
>> is blocking sys-libs/e2fsprogs-libs-1.41.3-r1)
>
> You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block for
> you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by recent
> portage releases.
>
Hi,

are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
resolve it by hand.
So if you're unlucky you have to resolve it by hand, but there's an
explanation in bugzilla.



Geralt.

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 656 bytes --]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:

> > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > recent portage releases.

> are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
> time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
> resolve it by hand.

That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first appeared
on ~arch systems.


-- 
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] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Alejandro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 858 bytes --]

2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>

> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
>
> > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > > recent portage releases.
>
> > are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
> > time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
> > resolve it by hand.
>
> That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
> stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first appeared
> on ~arch systems.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>
> Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
>

Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the problem
a couple of week ago, and i don/t remember any portage update,,,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1280 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 613 bytes --]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:59:32 -0200, Alejandro wrote:

> > That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
> > stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first
> > appeared on ~arch systems.

> Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the
> problem a couple of week ago, and i don/t remember any portage update,,,

2.1.6 AFAIK, which contains some of the new 2.2 features. I've not used
it myself because I always use testing versions of portage, even on
stable boxes.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Secret hacker rule #11: hackers read manuals.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Dale]

Alejandro wrote:
>
>
> 2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk <mailto:neil@digimed.co.uk>>
>
>     On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
>
>     > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the
>     block
>     > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
>     > > recent portage releases.
>
>     > are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
>     > time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
>     > resolve it by hand.
>
>     That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
>     stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first
>     appeared
>     on ~arch systems.
>
>
>     --
>     Neil Bothwick
>
>     Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
>
>
> Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the
> problem a couple of week ago, and i don/t remember any portage update,,,

I know portage-2.2_rc20 works well.  I have not had any trouble on mine
and you may want to give it a shot.  It is still keyworded I think but
it does handle the blocks very well. 

Your choice on whether to install or not.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Alejandro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1393 bytes --]

2009/1/16 Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com>

> Alejandro wrote:
> >
> >
> > 2009/1/15 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk <mailto:neil@digimed.co.uk>>
> >
> >     On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:07 +0100, Geralt wrote:
> >
> >     > > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the
> >     block
> >     > > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled
> by
> >     > > recent portage releases.
> >
> >     > are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was
> some
> >     > time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
> >     > resolve it by hand.
> >
> >     That's right, but now the new portage is stable so it is handled on
> >     stable systems. The block was handled automatically when it first
> >     appeared
> >     on ~arch systems.
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Neil Bothwick
> >
> >     Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?
> >
> >
> > Which version of portage do this? I am on amd64 stable and have the
> > problem a couple of week ago, and i don/t remember any portage update,,,
>
> I know portage-2.2_rc20 works well.  I have not had any trouble on mine
> and you may want to give it a shot.  It is still keyworded I think but
> it does handle the blocks very well.
>
> Your choice on whether to install or not.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
> Thanks for th einfo! I will give a try...

Cheers!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2199 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] e2fsprogs blocking question

[Alex Schuster]

Geralt wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>
> wrote: 

> > You don't need to remove anything, just let portage handle the block
> > for you. Blocks marked with a b (instead of a B) can be handled by
> > recent portage releases.

> are you sure that his works in this case? This blocking bug was some
> time before the new Portage went stable and back then you had to
> resolve it by hand.
> So if you're unlucky you have to resolve it by hand, but there's an
> explanation in bugzilla.

The blockers were resolved by portage 2.2 on 3-4 of my systems just fine, 
but on 2 others it did not work out and I did the upgrade manually. No 
idea why this is.

	Wonko