[gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

Recently, I updated xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager to version 1.3.1,
which is unstable, in order to prevent lvm2 from being pulled in as a
dependency.

grep xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager /etc/portage/package.*
/etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 ~x86

As I ran 'emerge -avuND @world' today, I got this output:
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies  ..... . .. ..... done!
[ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.37  USE="-static-libs" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29  0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-r1  USE="{-test}" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109  USE="readline thin udev (-clvm)
(-cman) -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd (-selinux)
-static -static-libs -systemd" 0 kB
[ebuild  NS    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1:0 [2.1.3:2] USE="nls -debug
-remote-access (-selinux)" 0 kB
[ebuild     UD ] xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 [1.3.1]
USE="policykit udisks%* -debug -networkmanager -systemd (-lxpanel%)"
XFCE_PLUGINS="brightness -battery" 0 kB

Total: 6 packages (1 downgrade, 4 new, 1 in new slot), Size of downloads: 0 kB

emerge trying to downgrade a package, Is that a bug or feature? This
is the first time I've encountered it. I googled it as well, but so
far found nothing relevant.

The list's input would be appreciated.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/16/2014 11:51 AM, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> Recently, I updated xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager to version 1.3.1,
> which is unstable, in order to prevent lvm2 from being pulled in as a
> dependency.
> 
> [ebuild     UD ] xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 [1.3.1]
> USE="policykit udisks%* -debug -networkmanager -systemd (-lxpanel%)"
> XFCE_PLUGINS="brightness -battery" 0 kB
> 
> Total: 6 packages (1 downgrade, 4 new, 1 in new slot), Size of downloads: 0 kB
> 
> emerge trying to downgrade a package, Is that a bug or feature? This
> is the first time I've encountered it. I googled it as well, but so
> far found nothing relevant.

Version 1.3.1 (which you had installed) used two XFCE_PLUGINS: "battery"
and "brightness". The newer 1.4.0 only uses "power". Since you still
have "brightness" in your XFCE_PLUGINS, it's pulling in the only version
that supports that, the previous 1.3.0. Try replacing "brightness" with
"power" in your XFCE_PLUGINS.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 11:51 AM, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> Recently, I updated xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager to version 1.3.1,
>> which is unstable, in order to prevent lvm2 from being pulled in as a
>> dependency.
>>
>> [ebuild     UD ] xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 [1.3.1]
>> USE="policykit udisks%* -debug -networkmanager -systemd (-lxpanel%)"
>> XFCE_PLUGINS="brightness -battery" 0 kB
>>
>> Total: 6 packages (1 downgrade, 4 new, 1 in new slot), Size of downloads: 0 kB
>>
>> emerge trying to downgrade a package, Is that a bug or feature? This
>> is the first time I've encountered it. I googled it as well, but so
>> far found nothing relevant.
>
> Version 1.3.1 (which you had installed) used two XFCE_PLUGINS: "battery"
> and "brightness". The newer 1.4.0 only uses "power". Since you still
> have "brightness" in your XFCE_PLUGINS, it's pulling in the only version
> that supports that, the previous 1.3.0. Try replacing "brightness" with
> "power" in your XFCE_PLUGINS.
>
>

Replacing brightness with power in XFCE_PLUGINS, followed by running
'emerge -avuND @world', still tried to downgrade the package in
question.

I then ran 'emerge -avuND '>xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1'
which suggested adding '=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0 ~x86' to
/etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.

I did that, followed by running 'emerge -avuND @world', which pulled
in xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0.

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/16/2014 12:39 PM, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> 
> Replacing brightness with power in XFCE_PLUGINS, followed by running
> 'emerge -avuND @world', still tried to downgrade the package in
> question.
> 
> I then ran 'emerge -avuND '>xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1'
> which suggested adding '=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0 ~x86' to
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.
> 
> I did that, followed by running 'emerge -avuND @world', which pulled
> in xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0.
> 

Did you have 1.3.1 keyworded? Because it was ~x86 also when it was removed.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 12:39 PM, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>
>> Replacing brightness with power in XFCE_PLUGINS, followed by running
>> 'emerge -avuND @world', still tried to downgrade the package in
>> question.
>>
>> I then ran 'emerge -avuND '>xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1'
>> which suggested adding '=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0 ~x86' to
>> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.
>>
>> I did that, followed by running 'emerge -avuND @world', which pulled
>> in xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.4.0.
>>
>
> Did you have 1.3.1 keyworded? Because it was ~x86 also when it was removed.
>
>
>

Yes, I did have this stanza, '=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1
~x86', in my /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alan McKinnon]

On 16/09/2014 17:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> Recently, I updated xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager to version 1.3.1,
> which is unstable, in order to prevent lvm2 from being pulled in as a
> dependency.
> 
> grep xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager /etc/portage/package.*
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 ~x86
> 
> As I ran 'emerge -avuND @world' today, I got this output:
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies  ..... . .. ..... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.37  USE="-static-libs" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29  0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-r1  USE="{-test}" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109  USE="readline thin udev (-clvm)
> (-cman) -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd (-selinux)
> -static -static-libs -systemd" 0 kB
> [ebuild  NS    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1:0 [2.1.3:2] USE="nls -debug
> -remote-access (-selinux)" 0 kB
> [ebuild     UD ] xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 [1.3.1]
> USE="policykit udisks%* -debug -networkmanager -systemd (-lxpanel%)"
> XFCE_PLUGINS="brightness -battery" 0 kB
> 
> Total: 6 packages (1 downgrade, 4 new, 1 in new slot), Size of downloads: 0 kB
> 
> emerge trying to downgrade a package, Is that a bug or feature? This
> is the first time I've encountered it. I googled it as well, but so
> far found nothing relevant.

portage is doing what the ebuilds and make.conf tell it to do.

For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.

Downgrades are not common, but neither are they unusual. It's not a
feature either, it's a necessaity that portage be able to do this.


> 
> The list's input would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/09/2014 17:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> Recently, I updated xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager to version 1.3.1,
>> which is unstable, in order to prevent lvm2 from being pulled in as a
>> dependency.
>>
>> grep xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager /etc/portage/package.*
>> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:=xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 ~x86
>>
>> As I ran 'emerge -avuND @world' today, I got this output:
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>>
>> Calculating dependencies  ..... . .. ..... done!
>> [ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.37  USE="-static-libs" 0 kB
>> [ebuild  N     ] sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29  0 kB
>> [ebuild  N     ] sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-r1  USE="{-test}" 0 kB
>> [ebuild  N     ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109  USE="readline thin udev (-clvm)
>> (-cman) -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd (-selinux)
>> -static -static-libs -systemd" 0 kB
>> [ebuild  NS    ] sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1:0 [2.1.3:2] USE="nls -debug
>> -remote-access (-selinux)" 0 kB
>> [ebuild     UD ] xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 [1.3.1]
>> USE="policykit udisks%* -debug -networkmanager -systemd (-lxpanel%)"
>> XFCE_PLUGINS="brightness -battery" 0 kB
>>
>> Total: 6 packages (1 downgrade, 4 new, 1 in new slot), Size of downloads: 0 kB
>>
>> emerge trying to downgrade a package, Is that a bug or feature? This
>> is the first time I've encountered it. I googled it as well, but so
>> far found nothing relevant.
>
> portage is doing what the ebuilds and make.conf tell it to do.
>
> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
>
> Downgrades are not common, but neither are they unusual. It's not a
> feature either, it's a necessaity that portage be able to do this.
>
>
>>
>> The list's input would be appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alan McKinnon
> alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
>
>

Thanks for the explanation. I overlooked the fact that XFCE_PLUGINS is
a user-defined variable and didn't think to look for answers in the
xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager ebuild at the time.
The responses I got are certainly appreciated.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
> 

Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy
XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Samuli Suominen]

On 17/09/14 03:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
>> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
>>
> Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy
> XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness.
>
>
>

That's not it. Portage doesn't work like that.

It's because he specifically keyworded 1.3.1 in package.keywords,
instead using something smart like:

<xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999

To get latest non-live version.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/09/14 03:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
>>> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
>>>
>> Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy
>> XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That's not it. Portage doesn't work like that.
>
> It's because he specifically keyworded 1.3.1 in package.keywords,
> instead using something smart like:
>
> <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999
>
> To get latest non-live version.
>
I'm not necessarily after the most recent non-live version of the package.
I just didn't want lvm2 pulled in as my current setup has no use for it.

What would you recommend doing, leave things as they are, or keyword
the stanza you suggested?

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Samuli Suominen]

On 17/09/14 16:16, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 17/09/14 03:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>> On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
>>>> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
>>>>
>>> Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy
>>> XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> That's not it. Portage doesn't work like that.
>>
>> It's because he specifically keyworded 1.3.1 in package.keywords,
>> instead using something smart like:
>>
>> <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999
>>
>> To get latest non-live version.
>>
> I'm not necessarily after the most recent non-live version of the package.
> I just didn't want lvm2 pulled in as my current setup has no use for it.
>
> What would you recommend doing, leave things as they are, or keyword
> the stanza you suggested?
>
> Thanks.
>

Notice that I said "_non_-live" and the "<" char in the line. I would
use the stanza (as you said)
because if 1.4.0 is not stabilized before something like 1.4.1 is added
to tree, and 1.4.0 gets
deleted, you are facing the same problem all over again.
As in, <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999 with the < means "I want
latest non-live version."

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge output: [ebuild UD ]

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> On 17/09/14 16:16, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 17/09/14 03:01, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>>> On 09/16/2014 03:14 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>> For some reason xfce-power-manager-1.3.1 does not satisfy what the local
>>>>> install needs but 1.3.0 does. So portage wants to make it so.
>>>>>
>>>> Version 1.3.1 was removed from the tree, leaving only 1.3.0 to satisfy
>>>> XFCE_PLUGINS=battery/brightness.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's not it. Portage doesn't work like that.
>>>
>>> It's because he specifically keyworded 1.3.1 in package.keywords,
>>> instead using something smart like:
>>>
>>> <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999
>>>
>>> To get latest non-live version.
>>>
>> I'm not necessarily after the most recent non-live version of the package.
>> I just didn't want lvm2 pulled in as my current setup has no use for it.
>>
>> What would you recommend doing, leave things as they are, or keyword
>> the stanza you suggested?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>
> Notice that I said "_non_-live" and the "<" char in the line. I would
> use the stanza (as you said)
> because if 1.4.0 is not stabilized before something like 1.4.1 is added
> to tree, and 1.4.0 gets
> deleted, you are facing the same problem all over again.
> As in, <xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-9999 with the < means "I want
> latest non-live version."
>

Understood. Thanks.