Summary: | portage-2.1.2-r9: both proftpd and snort depends on virtual/mysql, but wants mysql-5 anyway | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Honza <hkmaly> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | hkmaly |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Honza
2007-02-15 09:50:24 UTC
If you don't want a particular version, then package.mask the thing. Exactly the same as for any other ebuild out there. echo "=virtual/mysql-5*" >> /etc/portage/package.mask Please, don't file bugs before reading basic documentation, this is not a support forum. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3 For normal ebuilds, installing package does NOT attempt to install new version of packages which it depends on. There is an flag of emerge, -D, which do that, but I didn't used it. I know I can package-mask it, but why ? In older portage, this wasn't needed - if sufficient version is already installed, dependency is fullfilled. By that I mean I just tested it on computer with portage-2.1.1-r2 and it doesn't attempt to do it. So, I suppose this is either bug in portage-2.1.2-r9, or poorly documented behaviour change. (I didn't state it in original report because I wasn't sure about it.) Should I downgrade portage and cross-test it, or is downgrading portage dangerous ? Please, stop reopening this bug and read the fine manual. Closed. OK, manual readed. No new information found. I KNOW THAT I CAN MASK EBUILDS, but I don't want to mask every newer version of every ebuild I have installed just because some bug in portage is causing emerge to upgrading more packages that is needed. I REPEAT: portage-2.1.1-r2 is working as I expect, portage-2.1.2-r9 is working differently. If you think this change is somewhere documented, you will be kind to point me there, but don't tell me where I can read about masking. Maybee I should reclasify this as bug in portage ... or create different bugreport from this view. (Note: Yes, I downgraded portage and it's now working correctly even on that same machine. No masking was necessary.) Stop reopening this "bug". Closed, this is NOT a support forum, so stop using it as such. OK, I will not reopen this bug, but can you please tell me if you are closing it because 1) I didn't specify what the bug is clearly enough 2) You wasn't able to reproduce it 3) This behaviour change of portage is not bug or 4) You think the behaviour was not changed ? And please, don't tell me again this is not a support forum. I know it and I really think this is a bug. I may be mistaken, but I'm not intentionally trying to use this as support forum. This is by design, not a bug. Thanks for NOT making further noise here. I hope it's not noise to mention that bug #166939 (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166939), while not about exactly same problem, does provide answer to question WHY the behaviour changed and why (I suppose) you don't consider this a bug. Sorry for not finding it sooner. I spotted it only because http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-540033-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-portage+virtual.html appeared today on first page when searching in forum ... We really need the ability to lock bugs. :X |