| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:59 am Post subject: ruby-ng.eclass causes error in portage on dev-ruby/* |
 |
|
Edit 20180502: updated title to reflect the root cause
If you're just entering this topic for the first time, just skip the intolerant remarks some members felt appropriate to respond with regarding this issue. Go straight to post #8215684 for how to fix the error and following post how the error came about.
-----
Why wasn't this announced in news? The way this is pushed now causes huge issues and an incomprehensible message while running world updates
| Code: | emerge -1avgkuND @world
* IMPORTANT: 1 news items need reading for repository 'gentoo'.
* Use eselect news read to view new items.
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
!!! The following binary packages have been ignored due to non matching USE:
=dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1 ruby_targets_ruby22
=dev-db/qdbm-1.8.78-r1 ruby_targets_ruby22
=app-eselect/eselect-php-0.9.4-r5 apache2
=dev-lang/php-7.1.16 apache2
=dev-libs/openssl-1.0.2o bindist
=app-crypt/rhash-1.3.5 -libressl -openssl -ssl
NOTE: The --binpkg-respect-use=n option will prevent emerge
from ignoring these binary packages if possible.
Using --binpkg-respect-use=y will silence this warning.
!!! The following binary packages have been ignored due to changed dependencies:
sys-libs/ncurses-6.1-r2::gentoo
virtual/editor-0::gentoo
NOTE: The --binpkg-changed-deps=n option will prevent emerge
from ignoring these binary packages if possible.
Using --binpkg-changed-deps=y will silence this warning.
!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 )
...
|
[/url]
Last edited by gordonb3 on Thu May 03, 2018 9:59 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 30894
Location: here
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What problem? The only thing you need to rebuild some packages to support ruby23 (latest stable) , because ruby22 is marked masked
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Where in that log do you see mentioned that ruby2.2 is masked? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Also, there is no news item that informs that ruby 2.3 is the current stable. Not in portage, not in this forum. The latest item on ruby instructs to go to ">=dev-lang/ruby-2.2.9:2.2" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 30894
Location: here
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Where in that log do you see mentioned that ruby2.2 is masked? |
| Code: | $ eix dev-lang/ruby
[I] dev-lang/ruby
Available versions:
(2.2) [M]2.2.9 [M]2.2.10
(2.3) 2.3.6 2.3.7
(2.4) ~2.4.3 ~2.4.4
(2.5) ~2.5.0-r1 ~2.5.0-r2 ~2.5.1
{berkdb debug doc examples gdbm ipv6 jemalloc libressl ncurses +rdoc +readline rubytests socks5 ssl static-libs tk xemacs}
Installed versions: 2.3.7(2.3)(18:22:26 08. 04. 18)(berkdb gdbm ipv6 ncurses rdoc readline ssl -debug -doc -examples -jemalloc -libressl -rubytests -socks5 -tk -xemacs)
Homepage: http://www.ruby-lang.org/
Description: An object-oriented scripting language |
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Also, there is no news item that informs that ruby 2.3 is the current stable. Not in portage, not in this forum. The latest item on ruby instructs to go to ">=dev-lang/ruby-2.2.9:2.2" |
There is no newa because there is nothing to do, sure that if you have changed RUBY_TARGETS in package.use or in make.conf you should make the change by hand
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, come on!
Yes I know it is masked. Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread. Stick to the question asked.
How is a user expected to translate
| Code: | !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 ) |
into
?
We're not all running with KEYWORDS="~amd64". There are some systems where I like to run stable versions only, but that doesn't work too well if you start masking the stable version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fedeliallalinea
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 30894
Location: here
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: |
...
Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread.
... |
Indeed I won't tell you anything anymore.
_________________
Questions are guaranteed in life; Answers aren't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You already said enough
Effectively what you are saying is that according to you this topic is still accurate
On behalf of the rest of the Gentoo population I thank you for your consideration and your well manners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8935
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One would think a basic amount of curiosity should make you investigate the available ruby versions yourself rather than making false assumptions.
| Code: | # eshowkw ruby
Keywords for dev-lang/ruby:
| a | |
| m | |
| d x | |
| 6 8 | |
| 4 6 | u |
| a a a p s | | | n |
| l m r h i p m s p f m f | e u s | r
| p d a m p a p c x 6 3 a b i b | a s l | e
| h 6 r 6 p 6 p 6 8 8 9 s r s p s | p e o | p
| a 4 m 4 a 4 c 4 6 k 0 h c d s d | i d t | o
----------------+---------------------------------+---------+-------
[M]2.2.9 | + + + ~ + + + + + o ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ | 5 o 2.2 | gentoo
[M]2.2.10 | + + + ~ + + ~ + + o ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
----------------+---------------------------------+---------+-------
2.3.6 | ~ + + ~ + + + + + o ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ | 5 o 2.3 | gentoo
2.3.7 | + + + ~ + + ~ + + o ~ ~ + ~ ~ ~ | 5 o | gentoo
----------------+---------------------------------+---------+-------
2.4.3 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6 # 2.4 | gentoo
[I]2.4.4 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6 o | gentoo
----------------+---------------------------------+---------+-------
2.5.0-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6 # 2.5 | gentoo
2.5.0-r2 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6 # | gentoo
2.5.1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | 6 o | gentoo |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice of you to join in, but there is no false assumption. The top most code block is the exact message shown by portage and it does not say anything about ruby itself but instead complains about a REQUIRED_USE flag being set somewhere on some dev-ruby package. I did a full scan of the portage tree and the only place where this REQUIRED_USE flag pops up is in the md5-cache.
If this is somehow not the real source of the shown error I think many people would appreciate learning the real reason rather than seeing the smart-ass remarks of some dev (or whatever fedeliallalinea may be) taking shortcuts and expecting everyone to say hail and praise for him doing that. I'm fairly up to date with these systems and there's no mentioning anywhere that ruby 2.2 was to be replaced by ruby 2.3. And I wouldn't even have complained if portage had told me that ruby 2.2 was masked, even without prior notice, but the fact is that it didn't. Instead it gave me the runaround with the REQUIRED_USE flag that did not make any sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8935
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Why wasn't this announced in news? The way this is pushed now causes huge issues |
-wrong assumption 1-
You've decided to be your own master on RUBY_TARGETS, but now you refuse to accept responsibility. There is no news item because there is no need for action for anyone else using the default set by Portage.
| gordonb3 wrote: | | We're not all running with KEYWORDS="~amd64". |
Completely irrelevant for your problem.
| gordonb3 wrote: | | There are some systems where I like to run stable versions only, but that doesn't work too well if you start masking the stable version. |
-wrong assumption 2-
ruby23 is stable and works just fine per Portage defaults.
| gordonb3 wrote: | | The top most code block is the exact message shown by portage and it does not say anything about ruby itself but instead complains about a REQUIRED_USE flag being set somewhere on some dev-ruby package. |
RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
^ This did not make you make a connection with your ruby settings?
| gordonb3 wrote: | How is a user expected to translate
| Code: | !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 ) |
into
|
User: "Oh wait, why does it not like my RUBY_TARGETS anymore?"
User checks available ruby versions using well-known portage tools and cross-checks with their setting in `emerge --info`.
User: "Oh, my RUBY_TARGETS are outdated!"
a) User updates their RUBY_TARGETS. "Huge" problem gone.
b) User: "Heh, why did I set that in the first place? I won't be bothered with that again." ...removes custom RUBY_TARGETS from make.conf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: |
-wrong assumption 1-
You've decided to be your own master on RUBY_TARGETS, but now you refuse to accept responsibility. There is no news item because there is no need for action for anyone else using the default set by Portage.
|
Reading appears to be difficult:
| gordonb3 wrote: | | And I wouldn't even have complained if portage had told me that ruby 2.2 was masked, even without prior notice, but the fact is that it didn't. |
| asturm wrote: | | Completely irrelevant for your problem. |
My meaning varies
| asturm wrote: |
-wrong assumption 2-
ruby23 is stable and works just fine per Portage defaults.
|
There was a time when it wasn't. And since you didn't announce it, how am I or anyone else supposed to know about the change of status?
| asturm wrote: |
| gordonb3 wrote: | | The top most code block is the exact message shown by portage and it does not say anything about ruby itself but instead complains about a REQUIRED_USE flag being set somewhere on some dev-ruby package. |
RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
^ This did not make you make a connection with your ruby settings?
|
No. I was running the stable version of ruby per your specifications.
| asturm wrote: | | gordonb3 wrote: | How is a user expected to translate
| Code: | !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 ) |
into
|
User: "Oh wait, why does it not like my RUBY_TARGETS anymore?"
User checks available ruby versions using well-known portage tools and cross-checks with their setting in `emerge --info`.
User: "Oh, my RUBY_TARGETS are outdated!"
a) User updates their RUBY_TARGETS. "Huge" problem gone.
b) User: "Heh, why did I set that in the first place? I won't be bothered with that again." ...removes custom RUBY_TARGETS from make.conf. |
Again: No
User: where did that REQUIRED_USE flag come from?
User checks ebuild file but finds that ruby_targets_ruby22 should be supported. Included eclass also does not add the restriction and even a file listing of dev-lang/ruby shows that ruby-2.2.9 and ruby-2.2.10 are still there. Which is a silly thought of course because there is no mentioning of ruby 2.2 being masked.
a) doesn't work that way
b) same thing: I end up adding loads of package.mask entries because packages or their dependencies require me to drop the bindist flag - which I can't do.
So your solution which is really not about the actual problem but more about making your life easier not having to document or announce your (intended) changes actually makes things worse for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8935
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: | Again: No
User: where did that REQUIRED_USE flag come from?
User checks ebuild file but finds that ruby_targets_ruby22 should be supported. Included eclass also does not add the restriction and even a file listing of dev-lang/ruby shows that ruby-2.2.9 and ruby-2.2.10 are still there. Which is a silly thought of course because there is no mentioning of ruby 2.2 being masked. |
You describe a person that is not able to use well-known portage tools that do indicate masked packages just fine. File listings have never done that.
These tools do that for you:
equery
eshowkw
eix
And indeed the REQUIRED_USE did properly inform you as well, since you can't separate RUBY_TARGETS from the availability of ruby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tyrus
Guru
Joined: 03 Feb 2018
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: |
So your solution which is really not about the actual problem but more about making your life easier not having to document or announce your (intended) changes actually makes things worse for me. |
Woa - its the fault of the developers? I can't believe it ...
Perhaps you should stop your egocentric view and be more thankful with the work the developers do. They do that job for the benefit of many others users also. And they use the news option when its really needed, I am sure. Those news are not for pampering some special users, if you ask me.
If you work with an own RUBY_TARGETS, then you have to take care yourself. If you prefer it less problematic use the profile default values!
You caused your problems yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
at Tue May 01, 2018 2:07 pm
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Where in that log do you see mentioned that ruby2.2 is masked? |
at Tue May 01, 2018 4:06 pm
| gordonb3 wrote: | Oh, come on!
Yes I know it is masked. Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread. Stick to the question asked. |
no need for any further attempt at support, lost of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate the fact that you guys apparently all run with flags that don't cause issues with non-restrictive settings on e.g. ruby, but the only thing I'm asking here for is to be more informative.
As it stands, the information to be found here is still that ruby 2.2 is the stable version. Only it's not, because it got masked on April 27. Yes I know. You don't care. You all run ruby 2.5, because you can and you're feeling adventurous and well, you don't really care that half the stuff doesn't run with that version because some day it will and it will be a blast. You guys probably also think spending an hour on figuring out what's causing some cryptic message is the most fun you can get out of Linux, but I have a wive and also got better things to do.
So you hardblocked all dependencies on ruby 2.2 rather than just mask it and allow portage to inform the user that they have a masked package installed. Is it really that hard to admit that this was bad judgement and you did not foresee what the resulting error would be and that it might not be as obvious as you figured it to be? Do you really think there's any gain in blaming me for this issue? I already solved it. You on the other hand will likely be accusing lots of other users in the coming weeks, trying to convince yourself that this hardblocking thing was the best idea ever. It wasn't and you better not do it again on anything that is vital. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| krinn wrote: | at Tue May 01, 2018 2:07 pm
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Where in that log do you see mentioned that ruby2.2 is masked? |
at Tue May 01, 2018 4:06 pm
| gordonb3 wrote: | Oh, come on!
Yes I know it is masked. Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread. Stick to the question asked. |
no need for any further attempt at support, lost of time. |
Nice cut-and-paste
Can you answer the first question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21602
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: | | Yes I know it is masked. Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread. |
You may have found that before posting, but your original post makes no mention of this discovery. It seems reasonable to inform you of things we don't know that you know. | gordonb3 wrote: | How is a user expected to translate
| Code: | !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 ) |
into
? |
They are not, because ruby:2.2 being masked is not your problem. Your problem is that the target ebuild supports only ruby 2.3 and above, but your local configuration does not permit any of the supported Ruby versions. According to Portage, you must set at least one of ruby23, ruby24, ruby25. This same event could have happened without ruby:2.2 being masked if the upstream for coffee-script had decided to start using features new in Ruby 2.3, at which point the Gentoo maintainers would have configured the package as shown.
As for what Ruby implementations we run, I don't use Ruby at all. It's too immature of a language. It's allowed on my system because I use some packages that the upstream maintainers have decided to depend on Ruby for their build systems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | there is no need for action for anyone else using the default set by Portage. |
I can confirm this for one system. I think I noticed a change in targets, but it didn't stand out as an issue and resolved itself automatically. In my case, no news was "good news."
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hu wrote: | | gordonb3 wrote: | | Yes I know it is masked. Don't tell me how to find what I already did find even before I started this thread. |
You may have found that before posting, but your original post makes no mention of this discovery. It seems reasonable to inform you of things we don't know that you know.
|
Reading back the original post I still think it was implied that I did find the cause
| Hu wrote: | | gordonb3 wrote: | How is a user expected to translate
| Code: | !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/coffee-script" has unmet requirements.
- dev-ruby/coffee-script-2.4.1::gentoo USE="-test" RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby23 -ruby24 -ruby25"
The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby23 ruby_targets_ruby24 ruby_targets_ruby25 ) |
into
? |
They are not, because ruby:2.2 being masked is not your problem. Your problem is that the target ebuild supports only ruby 2.3 and above, but your local configuration does not permit any of the supported Ruby versions. According to Portage, you must set at least one of ruby23, ruby24, ruby25. This same event could have happened without ruby:2.2 being masked if the upstream for coffee-script had decided to start using features new in Ruby 2.3, at which point the Gentoo maintainers would have configured the package as shown.
|
That's the whole point. It's not the ebuild that sets the restriction. It is forced from somewhere above, presumably a profile thing, but the only place I could find it so far was in the md5-cache files. Someone from the Portage team deliberately set this without considering what the results would be. And in fact I found that I'm not the first to raise this issue here; there is a second topic in `Other Things Gentoo`.
| Hu wrote: | | As for what Ruby implementations we run, I don't use Ruby at all. It's too immature of a language. It's allowed on my system because I use some packages that the upstream maintainers have decided to depend on Ruby for their build systems. |
Nail - Hammer - PoW!
Ruby is pulled in as a build dependency by at least one package required to run a Web based GUI on the box I am maintaining. Allowing ruby to upgrade to any version causes loads of conflicts and portage requests for accepting ~arm and it is not the objective of the project to flood the system with unstable packages. Hence the hold back on (again) what is still named to be the stable version.
In effect this thread got hijacked by people that claim to have all the answers but are not giving any if only for the reason that due to the way they use Gentoo they are incapable of understanding what the question is about.
"It wasn't in news because it isn't news-worthy" Where do people get the idea that if they're not interested it is impossible for someone else to be interested? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 6920
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey, could you either stop being so abusive to every unpaid volunteer going out of their way to decipher your vague smartass passive-aggressive remarks or start paying enough for people to put up with you.
Oracle's that way if you want to maintain your attitude --> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ant P. wrote: | Hey, could you either stop being so abusive to every unpaid volunteer going out of their way to decipher your vague smartass passive-aggressive remarks or start paying enough for people to put up with you.
Oracle's that way if you want to maintain your attitude --> |
I can't help that you can't read.
I can also not help that most of the people responding to this topic appear to think that Gentoo is something of a free version of MS Windows and that users should not be allowed to choose what updates they want to install and when.
- The problem was clear - it's in the subject
- The question was clear - it's on the first line of the opening post
- The screen listing showing the original error was clear
Yet you guys insisted on not responding to the given information but feeding non-relevant information instead. Subsequently you ignored the question how you deduced that information to be relevant and finally you started being shmuck about it, giving more wrong answers and bad advice towards the originating problem while gloating that the only problems important enough for you are the ones that personally affect you. The answer to the question asked therefore being: because you don't care. You just like to be offensive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3339
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just stumbled into this same problem.
The solution was to change RUBY_TARGETS and then emerge -c ruby:2.2 && emerge @preserved-rebuild.
No. I didn't need any news item to tell me this. Now I feel godlike. I can read the minds of Gentoo devs.
But seriously. @gordonb3: I think you already [SOLVED] the issue. Why keep complaining?
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gordonb3
Apprentice
Joined: 01 Jul 2015
Posts: 185
|
| Posted: Wed May 02, 2018 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zucca wrote: | I just stumbled into this same problem.
The solution was to change RUBY_TARGETS and then emerge -c ruby:2.2 && emerge @preserved-rebuild.
No. I didn't need any news item to tell me this. Now I feel godlike. I can read the minds of Gentoo devs.
But seriously. @gordonb3: I think you already [SOLVED] the issue. Why keep complaining? |
Because the issue was never about ruby:2.2 being masked
It is also not really [SOLVED]. There just happened to be a workable alternative - this time! But just for fun, let's assume that the alternative didn't work. What do you do if you have a dependency on a package that is masked or even removed from the official portage tree? You unmask it, place a copy in a local repository (or in my case a registered overlay), put a copy of the source files somewhere safe in case those get deleted as well. The problem is that none of that would have worked here. None of this would have prevented portage to error out on the REQUIRED_USE constraint.
In any case I found the root cause of this issue. It's not about the profile, but about this section in ruby-ng.eclass:
| Code: | _ruby_get_all_impls() {
local i
for i in ${USE_RUBY}; do
case ${i} in
# removed implementations
ruby19|ruby20|ruby21|ruby22|jruby)
;;
*)
echo ${i};;
esac
done
}
|
I have a feeling that correcting this won't be sufficient though due to the md5-cache files. But there's our culprit.
@devs: Please don't do that again. Glad to have been of service. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2018 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gordonb3 wrote: | I have a feeling that correcting this won't be sufficient though due to the md5-cache files. But there's our culprit.
@devs: Please don't do that again. Glad to have been of service. |
No offence, but you haven't; changing that as you seem to intend, would not be any sort of fix. It would be a terrible idea, given that the dependencies are unavailable in the tree (per the comment, and this whole thread.)
I understand that portage output can be hard to understand, especially at first. You'll get used to it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
