On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200 > > > > Alan McKinnon wrote: > > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote: > > > > G'day, > > > > > > > > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been > > > > working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb > > > > drive is no longer automounting. > > > > > > > > This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which reported: > > > > > > > > * status: stopped". > > > > > > > > Running "/etc/init.d/udev start" reported: > > > > > > > > * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2! > > > > * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!. > > > > * ERROR: udev failed to start > > > > > > > > The message occurs because /etc/init.d/udev checks for > > > > /etc/init.d/sysfs, which is not present. > > > > > > > > Googling indicates that /etc/init.d/sysf comes from > > > > sys-apps/openrc. I have openrc-0.3.0-r1 installed (from long > > > > ago). openrc-0.6.0-r1 is available, though keyworded ~amd64. > > > > Unmasking it and running "emerge -p ..." shows that sysvinit is a > > > > blocker. > > > > > > > > Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I > > > > likely to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and > > > > how deep? > > > > > > very very very very deep trouble if you restart the machine and > > > everything is not complete yet. Do not do that. > > > > > > all version of baselayout-2 are marked unstable and you likely have > > > an old version of sysvinit that is not compatible with the ancient > > > openrc you do have. That openrc is not in portage anymore. > > > > > > You should upgrade to the latest unstable portage (which supports > > > automatically resolving blockers). You need baselayout, openrc and > > > sysvinit as well as /etc/init.d/sysfs. I have none of these in world > > > yet all are present. > > > > > > With the latest portage, try again and let portage figure out for > > > itself what it wants to do. > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > Reply appreciated! > > > > I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and > > currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version. > > No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean. > > You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call > masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely. > > Do not confuse these terms. They have *exact* meaning. > > You need to keyword portage as ~ in packages.keywords to release portage-2.2, > which is the version that supports automagic blocker resolution.
portage-2.2 *is* masked: /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask: # Zac Medico <[email protected]> (05 Jan 2009) # Portage 2.2 is masked due to known bugs in the # package sets and preserve-libs features. portage-2.1.7.17 is all you can get with package.keywords (and 2.1.7.16 without, at least on x86). -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*
