on ::gentoo, amd64, stable The lttng and lttng-tools packages say they must be "bumped together", but they have gotten out of sync. They _were_ bumped together, but this revert commit returned slot 2.12 to every ltt package except lttng-tools which now only has slot 2.13 available. https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/ba9b780bb4a83b27f932ba88d33b2e86e85ddfa1 This results in a portage slot conflict involving clion (Depends on 2.12) - shown in attachment - I would be amenable to reverting lttng-tools:0/2.12 back into the tree so the depgraph can be solved, or any other more advanced solution proposed. Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 917719 [details] slot 2.13 vs 2.12 conflict
(In reply to genBTC from comment #0) > on ::gentoo, amd64, stable > The lttng and lttng-tools packages say they must be "bumped together", but > they have gotten out of sync. > > They _were_ bumped together, but this revert commit returned slot 2.12 to > every ltt package except lttng-tools which now only has slot 2.13 available. > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/commit/ > ba9b780bb4a83b27f932ba88d33b2e86e85ddfa1 > > This results in a portage slot conflict involving clion (Depends on 2.12) > - shown in attachment - > > I would be amenable to reverting lttng-tools:0/2.12 back into the tree so > the depgraph can be solved, or any other more advanced solution proposed. > > Reproducible: Always I second this. Maybe a little radical but I might even suggest a total SLOT separation of SLOT:2.12 and SLOT:2.13 instead of 0/2.12 and 0/2.13. I had to mask 2.13 due to these reasons.
(In reply to Stefan Cristian Brindusa from comment #2) > Maybe a little radical but I might even suggest a total SLOT separation of > SLOT:2.12 and SLOT:2.13 instead of 0/2.12 and 0/2.13. That could be only done if you actually slot the packages, i.e., allow multiple slots to be installed in parallel. I don't have an issue with re-introducing lttng-modules 2.12. Until then, your conflict could probably also be solved by masking >=lttng-ust-2.13.
(In reply to Florian Schmaus from comment #3) > solved by masking >=lttng-ust-2.13. sorry, I meant masking >=lttng-tools-2.13
(In reply to Florian Schmaus from comment #3) > (In reply to Stefan Cristian Brindusa from comment #2) > > Maybe a little radical but I might even suggest a total SLOT separation of > > SLOT:2.12 and SLOT:2.13 instead of 0/2.12 and 0/2.13. > > That could be only done if you actually slot the packages, i.e., allow > multiple slots to be installed in parallel. > > I don't have an issue with re-introducing lttng-modules 2.12. Until then, > your conflict could probably also be solved by masking >=lttng-ust-2.13. Exactly, that would be the plan, since they're 2 supported ABIs, with previous 2.12 line being LTS now. i.e. 2.12.17 is newer than 2.13.8.(In reply to Florian Schmaus from comment #4) > (In reply to Florian Schmaus from comment #3) > > solved by masking >=lttng-ust-2.13. > > sorry, I meant masking >=lttng-tools-2.13 Locally that's what I did, mentioned in the earlier comment. Cheers!
Forgot to mention, I reintroduced 2.12.x here: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/40407 For the moment 2.12.17 ~amd64 needs testing, stabilization after.
Current issue depends on https://bugs.gentoo.org/949256 which will be closed by https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/40407 once proxy-merged.
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=2d668327a99d351d58abbd96b931cedfb22ec41f commit 2d668327a99d351d58abbd96b931cedfb22ec41f Author: Stefan Cristian B. <stefan.cristian+git@rogentos.ro> AuthorDate: 2025-02-03 10:40:49 +0000 Commit: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2025-02-03 16:30:11 +0000 dev-util/lttng-tools: add 2.12.17 (LTS version) Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/948954 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/949256 Closes: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/40407 Signed-off-by: Stefan Cristian B. <stefan.cristian+git@rogentos.ro> Signed-off-by: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> dev-util/lttng-tools/Manifest | 1 + dev-util/lttng-tools/lttng-tools-2.12.17.ebuild | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+)
Fixed, then? There was also this commit: commit f598748afb839148ca2a6753413b0693448b0d3f Author: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> Date: Mon Feb 3 17:29:35 2025 +0100 dev-util/lttng-tools: depend on lttng-ust subslot lttng-tools 2.12 will only compile with lttng-ust 2.12. Signed-off-by: Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org>
