[gentoo-user] udev downgrade

[gentoo-user] udev downgrade

[James]

The thread "Ethernet Machinations"
is finished and all ethernet issues
are resolved.


I'm starting a new thread as to deal with what to
do about udev. The same system mentioned in
the previous ethernet thread had become upgraded to
udev-196-r1 (late one night when I was tired
AND NOT THINKING TOO WELL...............
I have since been on a roller_coaster ride with
udev, almost eudev and version dev experimentations
as an accident...........

From the last thread:
I don't know what version of udev you're running (sorry if I missed it,)
but the udev-186 elog says:
        "Upstream has removed the persistent-net and persistent-cd rules
         generator. If you need persistent names for these devices,
         place udev rules for them in /etc/udev/rules.d."



I just sync and I have only have these versions of udev:
 Available versions:  ~141-r1 ~146-r1^t ~149 ~151-r4 ~164-r2 171-r9 ~195^t
~196-r1^t **999


So unless somebody can give me good reason, I'm downgrading to
udev-171 asap on this (only) system running udev 196.......
(ps, I like to experiment, but not with udev et. al.)


I even thinking or running 'emerge -e system' just to ensure
nothing is missed?

Suggestions are most welcome.

[gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[James]

James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:


> So unless somebody can give me good reason, I'm downgrading to
> udev-171 asap on this (only) system running udev 196.......
> (ps, I like to experiment, but not with udev et. al.)

Long night, when you have to answer your own posts.....

Now I get:


emerge -p1u udev

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

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild     UD ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9 [196-r1] USE="rule_generator%*
-action_modeswitch% -build% -debug% -edd% (-extras) -floppy% {-test%}" 
[blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking
sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-17-r1)

!!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
!!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:

sys-fs/udev:0

  (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
   
>=sys-fs/udev-196-r1[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?,static-libs?]
required by (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed)

(sys-fs/udev-171-r9::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot)


ideas?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Bruce Hill]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 02:54:31AM +0000, James wrote:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> 
> 
> > So unless somebody can give me good reason, I'm downgrading to
> > udev-171 asap on this (only) system running udev 196.......
> > (ps, I like to experiment, but not with udev et. al.)
> 
> Long night, when you have to answer your own posts.....
> 
> Now I get:
> 
> 
> emerge -p1u udev
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     UD ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9 [196-r1] USE="rule_generator%*
> -action_modeswitch% -build% -debug% -edd% (-extras) -floppy% {-test%}" 
> [blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking
> sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-17-r1)
> 
> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
> 
> sys-fs/udev:0
> 
>   (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>    
> >=sys-fs/udev-196-r1[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?,static-libs?]
> required by (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed)
> 
> (sys-fs/udev-171-r9::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>     (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot)
> 
> 
> ideas?
> 
> 
> James

Too late, too tired, but do you have:

>=sys-fs/udev-181

in /etc/portage/package.mask ?
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Matthias Hanft]

Bruce Hill wrote:
> 
> Too late, too tired, but do you have:
>> =sys-fs/udev-181
> in /etc/portage/package.mask ?

Ehm... according to http://packages.gentoo.org/category/sys-fs?full_cat
udev-171-r9 is the only stable x86 version, and udev-181 doesn't exist
at all?!

-Matt (still using 171 because at emerge -u world, an update never appeared)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 1/3/2013 20:54, James wrote:
> James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
>
>> So unless somebody can give me good reason, I'm downgrading to
>> udev-171 asap on this (only) system running udev 196.......
>> (ps, I like to experiment, but not with udev et. al.)
>
> Long night, when you have to answer your own posts.....
>
> Now I get:
>
>
> emerge -p1u udev
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     UD ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9 [196-r1] USE="rule_generator%*
> -action_modeswitch% -build% -debug% -edd% (-extras) -floppy% {-test%}"
> [blocks B      ] <sys-fs/udev-186 ("<sys-fs/udev-186" is blocking
> sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-17-r1)
>
> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
>
> sys-fs/udev:0
>
>    (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>
>> =sys-fs/udev-196-r1[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?,static-libs?]
> required by (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed)
>
> (sys-fs/udev-171-r9::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>      (no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot)
>
>
> ideas?
>
>
> James
>
>
The problem is you are trying to downgrade sys-fs/udev but not 
virtual/udev. If you want to force using udev-171, you need to mask both 
the real and virtual atoms. Try this in /etc/portage/package.mask/udev:

 >=sys-fs/udev-181
 >=virtual/udev-181

Then emerge -avuD1 udev and see if that fixes it.

-- 
♫Dustin

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Bruce Hill]

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 12:19:09AM -0600, Dustin C. Hatch wrote:
> >
> The problem is you are trying to downgrade sys-fs/udev but not 
> virtual/udev. If you want to force using udev-171, you need to mask both 
> the real and virtual atoms. Try this in /etc/portage/package.mask/udev:
> 
>  >=sys-fs/udev-181
>  >=virtual/udev-181
> 
> Then emerge -avuD1 udev and see if that fixes it.

Maybe this is true for a downgrade, but not normally:

mingdao@workstation ~ $ eshowkw udev
Keywords for sys-fs/udev:
           |                           | u   |  
           | a a             p     s   | n   |  
           | l m   h i m m   p s   p   | u s | r
           | p d a p a 6 i p c 3   a x | s l | e
           | h 6 r p 6 8 p p 6 9 s r 8 | e o | p
           | a 4 m a 4 k s c 4 0 h c 6 | d t | o
-----------+---------------------------+-----+-------
   141-r1  | ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | # 0 | gentoo
   146-r1  | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   149     | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   151-r4  | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   164-r2  | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
[I]171-r9  | + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + | o   | gentoo
   171-r10 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | o   | gentoo
   195     | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   196-r1  | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | o   | gentoo
  9999     | o o o o o o o o o o o o o | o   | gentoo
mingdao@workstation ~ $ cat /etc/portage/package.mask 
>=sys-fs/udev-181
>=dev-lang/python-3

And, yes, this udev mask is used on 8 Gentoo boxen on this LAN.
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

[gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[James]

Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo <at> gmail.com> writes:


> The problem is you are trying to downgrade sys-fs/udev but not 
> virtual/udev. If you want to force using udev-171, you need to mask both 
> the real and virtual atoms. Try this in /etc/portage/package.mask/udev:

>  >=sys-fs/udev-181
>  >=virtual/udev-181

> Then emerge -avuD1 udev and see if that fixes it.

I get the downgrades you would expect:



 UD ] virtual/udev-171 [196]
UD ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9

I also get some weird companion downgrades:

blocks B      ] >x11-libs/qt-script-4.8.2-r9999:4
(">x11-libs/qt-script-4.8.2-r9999:4" is blocking x11-libs/qt-declarative-4.8.2,
x11-libs/qt-webkit-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-svg-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-test-4.8.2,
x11-libs/qt-xmlpatterns-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-multimedia-4.8.2,
x11-libs/qt-opengl-4.8.2)
[blocks B      ] <x11-libs/qt-gui-4.8.4:4 
<snip>

and these:

Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
!!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:

virtual/udev:0

  (virtual/udev-171::gentoo,ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    <virtual/udev-196 required by (sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.88::gentoo, installed)
    =virtual/udev-171 required by (kde-base/kdelibs-4.9.3::gentoo, installed)
    (and 17 more with the same problems)

  (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
    >=virtual/udev-180 required by (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed)
    (and 1 more with the same problem)

sys-fs/udev:0

  (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
   
>=sys-fs/udev-196-r1[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?,static-libs?]
required by (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed)

  (sys-fs/udev-171-r9::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    ~sys-fs/udev-171[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?] required by
(virtual/udev-171::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)

<snip>

Does this look normal?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:23 AM, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Does this look normal?
>
>
> James


Does anything when you are running unstable (~amd64) and then trying
to push it toward stable? That's always been difficult and dare I say
unsupported.

OK, I only run stable so I have no experience in this area however I
am wondering whether you tried to temporize to something like mdev
stable, and went from mdev stable to udev stable if the results might
be more predictable/less obscure?

Just a thought,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 1/4/2013 10:23, James wrote:
> Dustin C. Hatch <admiralnemo <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> The problem is you are trying to downgrade sys-fs/udev but not
>> virtual/udev. If you want to force using udev-171, you need to mask both
>> the real and virtual atoms. Try this in /etc/portage/package.mask/udev:
>
>>   >=sys-fs/udev-181
>>   >=virtual/udev-181
>
>> Then emerge -avuD1 udev and see if that fixes it.
>
> I get the downgrades you would expect:
>
>
>
>   UD ] virtual/udev-171 [196]
> UD ] sys-fs/udev-171-r9
>
> I also get some weird companion downgrades:
>
> blocks B      ] >x11-libs/qt-script-4.8.2-r9999:4
> (">x11-libs/qt-script-4.8.2-r9999:4" is blocking x11-libs/qt-declarative-4.8.2,
> x11-libs/qt-webkit-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-svg-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-test-4.8.2,
> x11-libs/qt-xmlpatterns-4.8.2, x11-libs/qt-multimedia-4.8.2,
> x11-libs/qt-opengl-4.8.2)
> [blocks B      ] <x11-libs/qt-gui-4.8.4:4
> <snip>
>
I don't have Qt installed anywhere, so I can't reproduce that problem. I 
also don't see that particular version of qt-script in the tree, so I 
can't be sure, but my guess is some Qt dep that you already have 
installed depends on a newer version of udev than you will be getting 
after the downgrade, thus requiring it to downgrade as well.

> and these:
>
> Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
>
> virtual/udev:0
>
>    (virtual/udev-171::gentoo,ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>      <virtual/udev-196 required by (sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.88::gentoo, installed)
>      =virtual/udev-171 required by (kde-base/kdelibs-4.9.3::gentoo, installed)
>      (and 17 more with the same problems)
>
>    (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>      >=virtual/udev-180 required by (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed)
>      (and 1 more with the same problem)
>
> sys-fs/udev:0
>
>    (sys-fs/udev-196-r1::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>
>> =sys-fs/udev-196-r1[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?,static-libs?]
> required by (virtual/udev-196::gentoo, installed)
>
>    (sys-fs/udev-171-r9::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>      ~sys-fs/udev-171[gudev?,hwdb?,introspection?,keymap?,selinux?] required by
> (virtual/udev-171::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>
> <snip>
>
> Does this look normal?
>
Yes, I expected something like that. In all likelihood, you'll need to 
completely remove sys-fs/udev and virtual/udev and then reinstall the 
older version. You'll probably want to do this in single user mode (i.e. 
`rc single`), so running programs don't crash suddenly. A reboot 
afterward is probably a good idea as well.
-- 
♫Dustin

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Kevin Chadwick]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:52:29 -0600
"Dustin C. Hatch" <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:

> You'll probably want to do this in single user mode (i.e. 
> `rc single`), so running programs don't crash suddenly. A reboot 
> afterward is probably a good idea as well.

I'm interested in what may crash, do you mean after logging out and in
again etc.. I have started and stopped udev in the past during testing
without any apparent problems.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev downgrade

[Dustin C. Hatch]

On 1/4/2013 14:31, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 13:52:29 -0600
> "Dustin C. Hatch" <admiralnemo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You'll probably want to do this in single user mode (i.e.
>> `rc single`), so running programs don't crash suddenly. A reboot
>> afterward is probably a good idea as well.
>
> I'm interested in what may crash, do you mean after logging out and in
> again etc.. I have started and stopped udev in the past during testing
> without any apparent problems.
>
I'm not sure what would crash, if anything. It may very well be fine; I 
was just offering the suggestion just in case. If it were me doing it, 
I'd at least do it on a virtual console and not in an X11 terminal, in 
case your keyboard stops working (which seems unlikely, but I've learned 
that nothing is too crazy to expect when dealing with udev)

-- 
♫Dustin