From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812FD1381F4 for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D65F7E0534; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:52:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.cs.nyu.edu (SMTP.CS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.97]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87570E066B for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ajglap.localdomain (ool-182de1a5.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.225.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cs.nyu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7CHnqG2019450 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:49:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ajglap.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1502) id ECD6F70076; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Allan Gottlieb To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-user] udev-181 saga continues with udisks (~amd64) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:47:35 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) 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 Content-Type: text/plain X-Archives-Salt: 7b605977-a1e3-4b8d-b522-c7dd36f45c79 X-Archives-Hash: cf85ee9bb8a638fd1f8b392fcd1b0807 I have been masking udev-181 so that I can continue to keep my current system with / and /usr separate partitions. This has required masking pciutils and usbutils as well. /etc/portage/package.mask/udev-181 contains >=sys-fs/udev-181 >=sys-apps/pciutils-3.1.9-r2 >=sys-apps/usbutils-005-r1 Now udisks-1.99.0-r1 wants to pull in a new package udev-init-scripts. I currently have udisks-1.98.0 which is fine. I added >=sys-fs/udisks-1.99.0 to package.mask/udev-181 and emerge --pretend --update world reports no conflicts. I was about to proceed when I looked at eix udisks and noticed that 1. "my" udisk -1.98.0 is no longer there 2. The 1-99.0-r1 is now in slot 2 and new 1.0.4-r[23] are in slot 0. I looked at -r3 and it wants >=udev-171-r5. Since I have -r6 my sys. should meet the requirement. So I wonder if my mask >=sys-fs/udisks-1.99.0 is a bad idea and I should instead be forcing/encouraging udisks-1.0.4-r3 (and, if so, how?). thanks, allan