The IPv6 version of shorewall (shorewall6) depends on the IPv4 version of shorewall (just 'shorewall'): * dependency graph for net-firewall/shorewall6-4.5.21.9 `-- net-firewall/shorewall6-4.5.21.9 amd64 `-- net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.9 (=net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.9) amd64 `-- virtual/pkgconfig-0-r1 (virtual/pkgconfig) amd64 `-- net-firewall/iptables-1.4.21-r1 (>=net-firewall/iptables-1.4.20) amd64 [ipv6] `-- sys-apps/iproute2-3.17.0 (>=sys-apps/iproute2-3.8.0) amd64 [-minimal] `-- dev-perl/Socket6-0.250.0 (>=dev-perl/Socket6-0.230.0) amd64 [ net-firewall/shorewall6-4.5.21.9 stats: packages (6), max depth (1) ] However, this causes a problem, as shorewall is ready to move on, but shorewall6 is not: net-firewall/shorewall:0 (net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.1:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with =net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.9 required by (net-firewall/shorewall6-4.5.21.9:0/0::gentoo, installed) ^ ^^^^^^^^ As there exists a package shorewall-core, it seems like shorewall6 should depend on that instead, which would allow shorewall to upgrade independent of shorewall6.
Hi Tom, upstream's shorewall6 is not a complete package. It depends on shorewall itself. Shorewall depends on shorewall-core. See http://shorewall.net/download.htm: > Shorewall-core -- Required to install Shorewall, Shorewall6, > Shorewall-lite or Shorewall6-lite. > Shorewall -- Together with Shorewall-core, includes everything > needed to create an IPv4 firewall. > Shorewall6 -- Requires the Shorewall package and adds the capability > to create an IPv6 firewall. So for v4.5.x everything was fine. But that's not the problem: Beginning with shorewall-4.6.x we merged all the shorewall packages into *one* package. Because this new all-in-one package contains all the other packages it has set RDEPEND="[...] !net-firewall/shorewall-core !net-firewall/shorewall6 !net-firewall/shorewall-lite !net-firewall/shorewall6-lite !net-firewall/shorewall-init" Otherwise you would get file collisions. So basically you are reading the emerge message the wrong way: It tells you cannot have shorewall-core if you want the new shorewall all-in-one package. Please see the discussion starting in https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539664#c2: A news item would have helped you but it was declined. Once shorewall-4.6.6.2 is stable on all arches (bug 543450) I will start removal of shorewall-4.5. The mask will tell people still using 4.5 what to do. Please mark this bug as resolved if that was your problem.
"A news item would have helped you but it was declined." Is there a formal documentation of the impact criteria required to motivate a News Item and also documenting who owns the decision to "approve" or "decline" a proposed News Item? If so, where can we read it? I ask the question because I repeatedly feel that News Items should have been published when they were not, and I repeatedly encounter other Gentoo users sharing my opinion.
(In reply to Gustav Schaffter from comment #2) > "A news item would have helped you but it was declined." > > > Is there a formal documentation of the impact criteria required to motivate > a News Item and also documenting who owns the decision to "approve" or > "decline" a proposed News Item? > I ask the question because I repeatedly feel that News Items should have > been published when they were not, and I repeatedly encounter other Gentoo > users sharing my opinion. afaik the decision whether to lodge a news item is in the hands of the devs who maintain it and or who have authority to make and lodge one. Just look through the gentoo MLs and you'll see discussion re news items; 'please review this one' 'does this look ready' and so forth. In the case of this package, a proxy maintainer is subject to the decision making of the supervising devs who by definition have authority to commit to the portage tree and generate news items.
I sent a proposal to gentoo-dev ml for review: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/16421021e98dd0ee640702fba6bad1be Let's see what will happen.
I am closing this bug as "INVALID" because there never was a problem. But we finally added a news item to let people know how to migrate to shorewall-4.6.x.
There obviously was a problem, in that upgrading was impossible. If you're not going to fix it (except by explaining in a news item), then that's your resolution.
