Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!

Bug 138697

Summary: emerge could allow upgrading blockers first when only RDEPEND-ed
Product: Portage Development Reporter: Joe Wells <sllewbj>
Component: Core - DependenciesAssignee: Portage team <dev-portage>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: normal    
Priority: High    
Version: unspecified   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Description Joe Wells 2006-07-01 06:04:49 UTC
Consider these three new ebuilds:

  dev-java/java-config-wrapper-0.9-r5
  dev-java/java-config-2.0.26
  dev-java/java-config-1.3.0-r2

These are replacing this single old ebuild:

  dev-java/java-config-1.2.11-r1

Because both of the new java-config ebuilds RDEPEND on
java-config-wrapper, emerge decides to install them after the new
java-config-wrapper ebuild.  However, the java-config-wrapper ebuild
lists the older java-config ebuild as a blocker.  So emerge is stuck
as a result.

Because the dependencies are only RDEPEND's, it is actually okay to
install the newer java-config-1.3.0-r2 ebuild before installing the
java-config-wrapper ebuild, provided both are installed in the same
run.  This would allow things to proceed automatically.

Is it possible that this could be done?  I'm guessing this might need
to be a longer-term portage goal rather than something that could be
done quickly.

Obviously, there is a risk if installing the new java-config-1.3.0-r2
ebuild succeeds and installing the new java-config-wrapper fails.  If
this happens, the user would need to be warned that an RDEPEND of
java-config-1.3.0-r2 was not successfully installed and that they
should consider reverting.

Yes, I know that there are instructions at
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/java/java-upgrade.xml to remove the old
java-config first.  I still think it is a bug because it would be much
better if ordinary users didn't have to read every upgrade guide.
Things should just work.  You might choose to consider this an
enhancement request rather than a bug.
Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2006-07-01 06:11:57 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 79606 ***