As in bug 216193 , http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216193 , and bug 28073 http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=280734 there are package.mask deduction entries in arch/{x86,amd64} that do not inherit from base. http://dev.gentoo.org/~tanderson/pms/head/html/pms.html#x1-550005.2.10 PMS spec says Note that the -spec syntax can be used to remove a mask in a parent profile, but not necessarily a global mask (from profiles/package.mask, section 4.4). So I'm suggesting, that like the bugs before it, the section in profiles/package.mask as follows, should be migrated to profiles/base/package.mask # Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@gentoo.org> (6 Sep 2010) # Mask KDE 4.5.1 until it is fully committed As this QA warning is reported by Paludis, I've given only a subset of emerge --info. Portage 2.2_rc78 (default/linux/amd64/10.0, gcc-4.4.4, glibc-2.12.1-r1, 2.6.35-gentoo-r5 x86_64) ================================================================= System uname: Linux-2.6.35-gentoo-r5-x86_64-Intel-R-_Core-TM-2_Duo_CPU_T9300_@_2.50GHz-with-gentoo-2.0.1 Timestamp of tree: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 04:30:02 +0000 app-shells/bash: 4.1_p7::<unknown repository> dev-java/java-config: 2.1.10::<unknown repository> dev-lang/python: 2.4.6::<unknown repository>, 2.5.4-r4::<unknown repository>, 2.6.5-r3::<unknown repository>, 3.1.2-r4::<unknown repository> dev-util/cmake: 2.8.1-r2::<unknown repository> sys-apps/baselayout: 2.0.1::<unknown repository> sys-apps/openrc: 0.6.3::<unknown repository> sys-apps/sandbox: 2.3-r1::<unknown repository> sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13::<unknown repository>, 2.67::<unknown repository> sys-devel/automake: 1.4_p6-r1::<unknown repository>, 1.5-r1::<unknown repository>, 1.7.9-r2::<unknown repository>, 1.8.5-r4::<unknown repository>, 1.9.6-r3::<unknown repository>, 1.10.3::<unknown repository>, 1.11.1::<unknown repository> sys-devel/binutils: 2.20.1-r1::<unknown repository> sys-devel/gcc: 4.2.4-r1::<unknown repository>, 4.3.5::<unknown repository>, 4.4.4-r1::<unknown repository> sys-devel/gcc-config: 1.4.1::<unknown repository> sys-devel/libtool: 2.2.10::<unknown repository> sys-devel/make: 3.81-r2::<unknown repository> virtual/os-headers: 2.6.35::<unknown repository> (sys-kernel/linux-headers) ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="amd64 ~amd64" SYNC="rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
*** Bug 336669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
QA bug, please someone fix asap (anyone, KDE or not), I won't be able today
I added the mask in KDE 4.5.1 in base/package.mask, but before removing the mask in profiles/package.mask I'd like to ask if this is sufficient or I should add KDE 4.5.1 in more places, like {embedded,selinux,hardened,prefix}/package.mask. PS Is there a reason there is no similar warning in portage? Should I open a bug?
Portage should warn you about it soon: 21:45 < few_> ciaranm: -atom handling is fixed 21:46 < few_> will be released with 2.1.9.4 and 2.2_rc80
(In reply to comment #3) > I added the mask in KDE 4.5.1 in base/package.mask, but before removing the > mask in profiles/package.mask I'd like to ask if this is sufficient or I should > add KDE 4.5.1 in more places, like > {embedded,selinux,hardened,prefix}/package.mask. I'm still waiting for an answer to this, please pms/portage/QA guys someone reply soon.
Well it's not a PMS or a Portage thing... You need to look and see if any of those fancy profiles don't ultimately inherit from base, and if they don't, track down the maintainers of those profiles and ask them. A good starting point might be the last time this happened. See if you can find out whether anything else happened at the same time as r1.7 of: http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/package.mask?view=log
I removed the profiles/package.mask kde entries CC'ing hardened/selinux/embedded/prefix: Please read comment 3 and act accordingly or give me permission to touch your profiles. Thank you
(In reply to comment #3) > I added the mask in KDE 4.5.1 in base/package.mask, but before removing the > mask in profiles/package.mask I'd like to ask if this is sufficient or I should > add KDE 4.5.1 in more places, like > {embedded,selinux,hardened,prefix}/package.mask. As far as I know, the Prefix profiles inherit from base, so 4.5.1 should be masked right now for Prefix.
A profile trying to remove a mask from a parent profile should actually inherit said profile. If it doesn't, portage prints warnings like the following: --- Unmatch removal atom in /home/wired/devel/gentoo/tree/profiles/arch/amd64/package.mask: -~kde-base/kdelibs-4.5.1 --- Unmatch removal atom in /home/wired/devel/gentoo/tree/profiles/selinux/package.mask: -sec-policy/selinux-wireshark I'm getting a lot of these right now from the amd64 and selinux profiles when running 'repoman -v -d full'. In the amd64 case, the profile doesn't (directly or indirectly) inherit profiles/base. Adding "../../base" to profiles/arch/amd64/parent makes the warnings go away. selinux should also inherit profiles/base after moving all its masks into profiles/base/package.mask.
What does $PORTDIR/profiles/embedded actually inherit (it has no parent at this time)? Only thing we might negate is gettext while adding shadow. Add embedded@ back to the CC: when a bug exists for said profile and you understand it.
ABCD fixed portage, unCC'ing them too. @wired different issue, please file a separate bug against amd64/selinux or whoever is responsible for this
(In reply to comment #11) > ABCD fixed portage, unCC'ing them too. that is Prefix, not portage
I fixed the SELinux profile issues. Moved maskings out of global package.mask to base/package.mask and inerit that profile in SELinux profile.
*** Bug 337180 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
@amd64 can you have a look at your inheritance too please? thanks :)
(In reply to comment #15) > @amd64 can you have a look at your inheritance too please? thanks :) > @kde The removal atoms should be added to a profile that inherits base. profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask causes the same warnings.
(In reply to comment #16) > @kde > > The removal atoms should be added to a profile that inherits base. > profiles/arch/powerpc/package.mask causes the same warnings. > It is their problem that they have broken profile Anyway, resolving the bug
