Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote: By the way: I find the fact emerge -pv just fails in those cases extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of that? Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement, as how would you define a package that can be happily merged independently of a blocking package? portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to answer that. I admit it's annoying though. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote: By the way: I find the fact emerge -pv just fails in those cases extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of that? Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement, as how would you define a package that can be happily merged independently of a blocking package? portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to answer that. I admit it's annoying though. The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me the error about those two. Am I missing something? m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote: Seems a reasonable question, but will be almost impossible to implement, as how would you define a package that can be happily merged independently of a blocking package? portage is software, it isn't intelligent so it doesn't know how to answer that. I admit it's annoying though. The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me the error about those two. Am I missing something? Probably not :-) But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are tricky edge cases? -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
Alan McKinnon ha scritto: On Monday 30 June 2008, brullo nulla wrote: The block will in many cases affect only a branch of the dependency tree. For example, in this case it is all blocked because glibmm wants a masked glib. Portage knows that glibmm wants the masked glib, so it knows that glibmm causes the trouble. So it could in principle give me what is to update except for glibmm and glib - and give me the error about those two. Am I missing something? Probably not :-) But the portage code has been described as difficult to maintain, so I suppose the correct person to ask is Zac himself. Perhaps there are tricky edge cases? Maybe. It could be a toggable feature. It is often said the current state of Portage code is quite messy. I don't know, never read it. I'd like to contribute them a bit (I know some Python) but if experienced Portage developers are in fear of touching code, I wouldn't probably be of help. I wonder if Paludis does what I say. Could it be the day I switch... (If only there was a Python portage replacement... a Portage-ng project?) m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
Hi, It is probably a dumb blunder of mine, but it seems that there is something weird with glib on my world file. emerge -pv world fails with: --- !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy =dev-libs/glib-2.16 have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) --- Now, I have a bunch of unmasked stuff in package.keywords, but I've *not* unmasked glibmm ~x86 or other glib related stuff. So why is a x86 glibmm pulling down ~x86 stuff/why is an unstable glibmm being pulled down? By what? By the way: I find the fact emerge -pv just fails in those cases extremly annoying. Shoudn't it report the error, skip offending packages but let me see what can be happily merged independently of that? m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:39:21 +0200, b.n. wrote: emerge -pv world fails with: --- !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy =dev-libs/glib-2.16 have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here. -- Neil Bothwick And God said, I'll buy a vowel. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
Neil Bothwick ha scritto: !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy =dev-libs/glib-2.16 have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here. Synced and nothing changed. Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200 b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neil Bothwick ha scritto: !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy =dev-libs/glib-2.16 have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here. Synced and nothing changed. Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage. m. Hi, Perhaps you should try another mirror. Here is what I get on a stable x86 system: emerge -pv dev-libs/glib [ R ] dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 USE=fam -debug -doc -hardened (-selinux) -xattr -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200, b.n. wrote: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here. Synced and nothing changed. Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage. I've just read the message more carefully and seen the problem, I only noticed the profiles/package.mask part, meaning it is masked in your profile, not /etc/portage, and didn't look carefully at the full path. This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party overlay breaking things for you. -- Neil Bothwick Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
Neil Bothwick ha scritto: On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:45:20 +0200, b.n. wrote: - dev-libs/glib-2.16.3 (masked by: package.mask) /usr/portage/local/layman/desktop-effects/profiles/package.mask: # # [EMAIL PROTECTED] (9 February 2008) # glib-2.15 breaks some packages - dev-libs/glib-2.16.2 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) - dev-libs/glib-2.16.1 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook. (dependency required by dev-cpp/glibmm-2.16.1 [ebuild]) Sync again, glib-2.16.3 is not masked in the profile here. Synced and nothing changed. Where should I look for? I have no package.mask in /etc/portage. I've just read the message more carefully and seen the problem, I only noticed the profiles/package.mask part, meaning it is masked in your profile, not /etc/portage, and didn't look carefully at the full path. This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party overlay breaking things for you. *slaps head with palm* Thanks! How silly was I not reading that. Now, what should I do? Ask to the desktop-effects guys? And *why* does an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal? I'm confused. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:04:20 +0200, b.n. wrote: This is masked in a profile from the desktop-effects overlay. It's nothing to do with the official portage tree, but a third-party overlay breaking things for you. Now, what should I do? Ask to the desktop-effects guys? Seems a reasonable question. And *why* does an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal? Because masking is global, the sum of all the package.mask files is applied to the system as a whole. -- Neil Bothwick Few women admit their age. Few men act theirs. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] unstable glib pulled down, but why?
Neil Bothwick ha scritto: And *why* does an overlay mask things from the *main* portage tree? Is this normal? Because masking is global, the sum of all the package.mask files is applied to the system as a whole. Yes, I know. What I wondered, is if this is normal policy. It seems that an overlay messing with main portage tree is just asking for trouble. But again, I'll ask to the overlay guys. Thanks a lot as usual, m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
