| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tmcca
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 May 2019
Posts: 120
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:25 pm Post subject: Blocked package? [SOLVED] |
 |
|
I am trying to figure out what to do here.
It says sys-fs/udev is blocking sys-fs/eudev
I selected profile set 23 and updated using emerge --ask --verbose --update --deep --newuse @world
Added more data to the title in the hopes of reducing the likelihood of duplicate threads. —Chiitoo
Last edited by tmcca on Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 31280
Location: here
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can post full emerge output and emerge --info? Probably you have problem with some use flag
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apparently there's something fishy with "virtual/libudev".
So, if you see this
| Code: |
[blocks B ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-fs/eudev-3.2.5)
* Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
* installed at the same time on the same system.
(sys-fs/udev-242:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,
abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_riscv_lp64d(-)?,
abi_riscv_lp64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?] (>=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by (virtual/libudev-232-r1:0/1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
(sys-fs/eudev-3.2.5:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>=sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1 required by (virtual/udev-217:0/0::gentoo, installed)
|
Workaround is to mask
| Code: |
>=virtual/libudev-232-r1 |
That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?).
Wrapped a long line to make the forum layout behave. —Chiitoo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles17
Advocate
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 3685
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Blocked package? |
|
|
| tmcca wrote: | I am trying to figure out what to do here.
It says sys-fs/udev is blocking sys-fs/eudev |
See https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/virtual/libudev?showmsg=1
So you might put | /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords: | # required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 31280
Location: here
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sphakka wrote: | | Apparently there's something fishy with "virtual/libudev". |
You right
| Code: | RDEPEND="
!systemd? ( >=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}] )
systemd? ( >=sys-apps/systemd-232:0/2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}] )
" |
| Code: | commit 9f09d6675b255190d9376671c68565c54662d771
Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
Date: Sat Oct 26 17:43:59 2019 +0200
virtual/libudev: Remove incorrect eudev provider from 232
Remove sys-fs/eudev from the list of providers for 232 since it does
not satisfy the requirement on that version. Since it is the only
provider offering static-libs, remove that flag as well (reverse
dependencies have already been updated to account for that). While
at it, bump to EAPI 7.
People who are in dire need of static libraries or eudev in general
can still install the older version of virtual/libudev.
Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/697550
Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> |
| sphakka wrote: | | That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?). |
Or unmask 232-r2
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xanderal
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 06 Mar 2019
Posts: 133
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Same problem here. | sphakka wrote: | Workaround is to mask
| Code: |
>=virtual/libudev-232-r1 |
That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?). |
| fedeliallalinea wrote: | | Or unmask 232-r2 |
Is there a good reason to prefer one over the other?
virtual/libudev-232-r2 was just released a couple hours ago... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the info, @fedeliallalinea. But
| fedeliallalinea wrote: | | Or unmask 232-r2 |
nope (I tried it), you need the older v215-r1. The message is clear: no eudev with "virtual/libudev-232". What's not clear to me from the bug report is if future libudev releases will support eudev (I don't use static-libs). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 31280
Location: here
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xanderal wrote: | Same problem here. | sphakka wrote: | Workaround is to mask
| Code: |
>=virtual/libudev-232-r1 |
That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?). |
| fedeliallalinea wrote: | | Or unmask 232-r2 |
Is there a good reason to prefer one over the other?
virtual/libudev-232-r2 was just released a couple hours ago... |
No if some package don't require a >=232 version.
Version 232 for to install eudev-3.2.9 I think cause by this bug.
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For the time being (I use OpenRC), I stick to v232 in package.mask
| Code: | >=virtual/libudev-232-r1
<virtual/libudev-232 |
Smells like eudev is lagging a bit behind... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xanderal
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 06 Mar 2019
Posts: 133
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sphakka wrote: | | fedeliallalinea wrote: | | Or unmask 232-r2 |
nope (I tried it), you need the older v215-r1. The message is clear: no eudev with "virtual/libudev-232". |
Are you sure? This is in the ebuild of 232-r2: | Code: | !systemd? ( || (
>=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
>=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
) ) |
| sphakka wrote: | | What's not clear to me from the bug report is if future libudev releases will support eudev (I don't use static-libs). |
The new release note looks promising.
edited to clean up code part |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| xanderal wrote: | Are you sure? This is in the ebuild of 232-r2: | Code: | !systemd? ( || (
+ >=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
+ >=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
+ ) ) |
|
I didn't work probably because sys-fs/eudev is at 3.2.5 while higher versions are masked. Will unmask and retry later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
charles17
Advocate
Joined: 02 Mar 2008
Posts: 3685
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sphakka wrote: | | I didn't work probably because sys-fs/eudev is at 3.2.5 while higher versions are masked. Will unmask and retry later. |
Go back 7 posts ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tmcca
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 May 2019
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the replies by entering this
| Code: |
/etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:
# required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64
|
is a temporary fix correct? Is this the correct approach to solve this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xanderal
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 06 Mar 2019
Posts: 133
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 27, 2019 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I just finished doing an upgrade with the workaround charles17 suggested.
No errors to report, everything is working fine  Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UlvHare
n00b
Joined: 09 Sep 2015
Posts: 21
Location: USSR
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you all for the information! It saved me from eudev loss and a working day to restore.
Really I was shocked:
- eudev is necessary (for desktop without systemd)
- today update causing eudev loss in stable system
- are we on Gentoo or on Arch?
Bad joke or developers need some rest, not work at Sunday night.
After reading this tread my workaround is:
| Code: |
alver@hare ~ $ cat /etc/portage/package.mask/libudev
=virtual/libudev-232-r1
|
which downgraded it to ver. 215-r1 and let me normal daily update. Reboot... So far so good.
Waiting for stabilizing virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9... or new surprises? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 31280
Location: here
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UlvHare wrote: | | Waiting for stabilizing virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9... or new surprises? |
No surprises, the problem arises from this bug.
| UlvHare wrote: | | Bad joke or developers need some rest, not work at Sunday night. |
Maybe (I'm in no position to know) the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community.
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jserink
Veteran
Joined: 30 Jan 2004
Posts: 1013
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Charles17 solution worked for me aswell.
In my /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:
# required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# # required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64
Cheers,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6160
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fedeliallalinea wrote: | | the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community. |
The devs are too gung-ho about removing ebuilds that are considered updated.
There's really no harm in an ebuild sitting for a few days or a week to make sure the new one works properly.
In cases like this, then simply masking the upgrade would allow the currently working ebuild/installed pkg to continue to work.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Josef.95
Advocate
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4670
Location: Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UlvHare
n00b
Joined: 09 Sep 2015
Posts: 21
Location: USSR
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| fedeliallalinea wrote: |
No surprises, the problem arises from this bug. |
Very strange, IMO. That bug is specific for Gnome without systemd and results of such "cure" affect many more users.
| fedeliallalinea wrote: |
Maybe (I'm in no position to know) the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community. |
Yes, great thanks to this forum again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 31280
Location: here
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UlvHare wrote: | | fedeliallalinea wrote: |
No surprises, the problem arises from this bug. |
Very strange, IMO. That bug is specific for Gnome without systemd and results of such "cure" affect many more users. |
Now virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 are stable and problem is solved
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chiitoo
Administrator
Joined: 28 Feb 2010
Posts: 2733
Location: Here and Away Again
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Installing Gentoo to Portage & Programming, as this isn't specific to installing, and others might better find it here.
_________________
Kindest of regardses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6160
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now if we could only do something about the devs creating the problem in the first place.
Too bad gentoo doesn't have a QA division.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naib
Watchman
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6067
Location: Removed by Neddy
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: |
Now if we could only do something about the devs creating the problem in the first place.
Too bad gentoo doesn't have a QA division. |
or non-partisan dev's
...
| Quote: |
(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #9)
> (In reply to Anton Bolshakov from comment #
> > The current stable tree is broken. Please sync stabilization and do it at
> > one go.
>
> It is not broken. It simply doesn't support eudev anymore. This may change
> in the future but doesn't change the fact that eudev is barely alive.
The deptree is broken, which basically is a (QA) violation. |
spinning something as not supported when it was a QA problem is low
_________________
| Quote: | | Removed by Chiitoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6160
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naib wrote: | | spinning something as not supported when it was a QA problem is low |
Yeah, but it works if your goal is to destabilize/destroy gentoo.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
