View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Baer Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 11 Sep 2003 Posts: 96 Location: Munich, Germany
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:44 pm Post subject: sys-auth/pambase blocking sys-apps/shadow |
|
|
Hi,
somehow I managed to uninstall sys-apps/shadow, which left the machine nearly unusable. Luckily an sshd was still running and I could login via ssh to the box.
Upon emerging shadow the following happens:
Quote: | remotebox ~ # emerge -av shadow
* IMPORTANT: 7 news items need reading for repository 'gentoo'.
* Use eselect news to read news items.
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] sys-apps/shadow-4.1.4.3 USE="cracklib nls pam -audit (-selinux) -skey" 1,762 kB
[ebuild R ] virtual/shadow-0 0 kB
[blocks B ] <sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1 ("<sys-apps/shadow-4.1.5-r1" is blocking sys-auth/pambase-20120417-r1)
Total: 2 packages (1 new, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 1,762 kB
Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
* Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
* installed at the same time on the same system.
(sys-apps/shadow-4.1.4.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>=sys-apps/shadow-4.1 required by (virtual/shadow-0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the following
section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture is irrelevant):
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?full=1#blocked |
Any help is greatly appreciated. _________________ Life is like a roll of toilet paper, when the end is near we panic! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
krinn Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003 Posts: 7470
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you can bypass this kind of chiken/egg problem generally with
passing both on the same command line : emerge -1 shadow pambase
or telling portage to don't care about the dep : emerge -1 --nodeps shadow (then emerge -1D shadow to add pambase back) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Baer Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 11 Sep 2003 Posts: 96 Location: Munich, Germany
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi, krinn,
sounds to me pretty like using steamroller tactics.
I wonder, if I'm the only one running into trouble here.
Regs,
Rob _________________ Life is like a roll of toilet paper, when the end is near we panic! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Hu Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007 Posts: 21602
|
Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Baer wrote: | sounds to me pretty like using steamroller tactics.
I wonder, if I'm the only one running into trouble here. | Using --nodeps is a steamroller approach and not a good idea if other options are available. However, the other suggestion, naming both packages at once, is fine. It tells the package manager that upgrades on both are desired, which may allow it to pick an installation order that solves the block. The command you tried upgrades only shadow and any hard build upgrade requirements. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|