net-wireless/wpa_supplicant cannot be installed

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

I keep trying to install net-wireless/wpa_supplicant, but I get an error "Failed to emerge dev-python/m2crypto-0.24.0".
Basically it says that dev-python/m2crypto is needed for net-wireless/wpa_supplicant, but then I am not sure why it fails to be emerged

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:37 pm Post subject:

m_p_w,

Put the build log for dev-python/m2crypto onto a pastebin site.
The failure message will give the location of the build log.
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

https://pastebin.com/hr4vPWnS

Anon-E-moose · Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:11 pm Post subject:

Probably something like https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=827068

Edit to add: I don't have it on my desktop, but I run wpa_supplicant on the laptop and it didn't have a problem compiling m2crypto.

wpa_supplicant-2.6-r6
m2crypto-0.24.0
openssl-1.0.2o-r3

Edit to add2: same problem - Solved -> https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080608-start-0.html
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

Anon-E-moose · Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:56 pm Post subject:

The latest stable version is openssl-1.0.2o-r3, that's what should be being loaded.

If you do an "emerge -pv @world" what does it show? ( "-p" is the pretend flag, nothing will get emerged)
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

https://pastebin.com/CGqDF1GP

it says that dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0i:0/1.1::gentoo is being loaded

should I downgrade it to openssl-1.0.2o-r3?

fedeliallalinea · Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:15 pm Post subject:

Anon-E-moose · Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:28 pm Post subject:

You should have an entry for openssl in /etc/portage/package.keywords, remove that.
Or as fedeliallalinea said it might be in package.unmask, if so remove it

Then redo the pretend emerge command and lets make sure that the old one is going to be installed.

Edit to add: Also check /etc/portage/make.conf and look for the EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS line.
Does it have "--autounmask=n" on that line?
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

Ok thank you guys, now it works, I changed " =dev-libs/openssl-1.1.0i " to "=dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2o-r3 " in /etc/portage/package.unmask
and later I used the command emerge --ask openssl to downgrade openssl to 1.0.2o-r3.

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:22 pm Post subject:

m_p_w,

There are some changes in dev-libs/openssl-1.1 that make it incompatible with dev-libs/openssl-1.0 and lots of things that depend on openssl too.
Left to its own devices, portage will install dev-libs/openssl-1.0 for you.

Anon-E-moose · Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 5:52 pm Post subject:

Thanks Neddy, I was going to tell him that.

m_p_w, try not to keep too many entries in your /etc/portage/package.* files as they will become harder to keep up with.
You shouldn't need much of anything in the package.unmask file, that's usually empty.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31

but then can I just delete etc/portage/package.* and it will automatically install dev-libs/openssl-1.0 and not dev-libs/openssl-1.1?

NeddySeagoon · Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:35 pm Post subject:

m_p_w,

Correct.

You can always comment out the entry and test.

Trust but verify :)
_________________
Regards,

NeddySeagoon

Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail.

Anon-E-moose · Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2018 7:36 pm Post subject:

I wouldn't delete them en-mass.

package.unmask is fine to be empty.
package.mask, keyword and use might or might not be needed depending on what you have or what you plan on installing on your system.

Edit to add: as Neddy said, commenting out is better, that way if needed you can easily uncomment, and not needed you can delete the commented line later.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland

saderror256 · Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:25 am Post subject:

m_p_w · n00b Joined: 12 Sep 2016 Posts: 31