Bug 270953 – [PATCH] !!atom blockers do not work for packages in the same slot

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Portage Development

[Description Wilfried 2009-05-23 15:10:18 UTC]

During an "emerge -DNu dev-java/jruby", install revealed a collision betteween multiple files from "dev-ruby/rubygems"

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. install dev-ruby/rubygems-1.3.3 (no use flag)
2. try to install dev-java/jruby-1.2.0-r1 (java6 ssl)
3.

Actual Results:  
dev-ruby/rubygems-1.3.3 installed
dev-java/jruby-1.2.0-r1 not installed

Expected Results:  
dev-ruby/rubygems-1.3.3 installed
dev-java/jruby-1.2.0-r1 installed

[Comment 1 Wilfried 2009-05-23 15:13:55 UTC]

Created attachment 192205 [details]
emerge --info and emerge -DNu dev-java/jruby

[Comment 2 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-23 21:01:27 UTC]

ruby: any idea why rubygems would own files under /usr/share/jruby ?

[Comment 3 Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) 2009-05-23 21:09:41 UTC]

Not unless you hacked ebuild and eclass like I did last night as PoC..

[Comment 4 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-23 23:08:04 UTC]

Ah, so /usr/share/jruby/lib/site_ruby used to be a symlink to /usr/lib/ruby in older jruby versions, now replaced by a proper directory with own content. And the collision detect code is not that smart to see it's not a collision... Removing the symlink in pkg_preinst also does not work because the collision check is run before (bug 233278).

I've therefore added checks in pkg_setup which die and give instructions. I guess blocking on older jruby could work too but perhaps less explanatory and more confusing, the benefit being occuring in the dependency resolution phase...?

[Comment 5 Wilfried 2009-05-24 08:53:34 UTC]

I managed to install jruby-1.2.0-r1, unmerging jruby-1.0.3 and then installing jruby-1.2.0-r1

does something like "!<jruby-1.2.0-r1" in the dependency of jruby would solve this problem ?

[Comment 6 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-25 12:04:10 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> does something like "!<jruby-1.2.0-r1" in the dependency of jruby would solve
> this problem ?
 
Portage (2.2 at least) seems to ignore such block.

[Comment 7 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-25 21:30:02 UTC]

portage: want to draw any bug for collision protect and/or lack of self-blocking?

[Comment 8 Vlastimil Babka (Caster) (RETIRED) 2009-05-25 21:39:16 UTC]

solving bug 233278 would allow better solution

[Comment 9 Zac Medico 2009-05-25 23:38:57 UTC]

(In reply to comment #8)
> solving bug 233278 would allow better solution

That's one way to do it. However, portage shouldn't be ignoring this blocker. I plan to fix it so that you can use something like !!<jruby-1.2.0-r1 for this case. The new !!atom syntax seems to make more sense for this case, since !atom means the packages can be temporarily installed simultaneously.

[Comment 10 Sebastian Luther (few) 2009-06-27 17:48:51 UTC]

Created attachment 195901 [details, diff]
Make emerge repsect blockers for packages in the same slot, except the selected version itself.

[Comment 11 Zac Medico 2009-06-27 19:44:00 UTC]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Created an attachment (id=195901) [edit]
> Make emerge repsect blockers for packages in the same slot, except the selected
> version itself.

Thanks, I've committed a similar patch in r13716. The condition I used is:

  if pkg.slot_atom == parent.slot_atom and \
     not blocker.atom.blocker.overlap.forbid:

I think this should be fine even for the same cpv since the new !!atom syntax is less commonly used.

[Comment 12 Samuli Suominen (RETIRED) 2009-07-12 22:52:09 UTC]

*** Bug 277430 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 13 Zac Medico 2009-08-03 23:03:20 UTC]

This is fixed in 2.2_rc34.

[Comment 14 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2009-10-02 12:25:48 UTC]

*** Bug 287306 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 15 Zac Medico 2009-10-11 00:47:48 UTC]

This is fixed in 2.1.7.