Blocked package? [SOLVED]

[tmcca]

I am trying to figure out what to do here.

It says sys-fs/udev is blocking sys-fs/eudev

I selected profile set 23 and updated using emerge --ask --verbose --update --deep --newuse @world

Added more data to the title in the hopes of reducing the likelihood of duplicate threads. —[profile=215889]Chiitoo[/profile]

[fedeliallalinea]

You can post full emerge output and emerge --info? Probably you have problem with some use flag

[sphakka]

Apparently there's something fishy with "virtual/libudev".

So, if you see this

Code: Select all

[blocks B     ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-fs/eudev-3.2.5)

 * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
 * installed at the same time on the same system.

  (sys-fs/udev-242:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
    >=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,
      abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_riscv_lp64d(-)?,
      abi_riscv_lp64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?] (>=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by (virtual/libudev-232-r1:0/1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)

  (sys-fs/eudev-3.2.5:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
    >=sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1 required by (virtual/udev-217:0/0::gentoo, installed) 

Workaround is to mask

Code: Select all

>=virtual/libudev-232-r1

That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?).

Wrapped a long line to make the forum layout behave. —[profile=215889]Chiitoo[/profile]

[charles17]

I am trying to figure out what to do here.

It says sys-fs/udev is blocking sys-fs/eudev

See https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.g ... ?showmsg=1

So you might put

Code: Select all

# required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64

[fedeliallalinea]

Apparently there's something fishy with "virtual/libudev".

You right

Code: Select all

RDEPEND="
        !systemd? ( >=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}] )
        systemd? ( >=sys-apps/systemd-232:0/2[${MULTILIB_USEDEP}] )
"

Code: Select all

commit 9f09d6675b255190d9376671c68565c54662d771
Author: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
Date:   Sat Oct 26 17:43:59 2019 +0200

    virtual/libudev: Remove incorrect eudev provider from 232
    
    Remove sys-fs/eudev from the list of providers for 232 since it does
    not satisfy the requirement on that version.  Since it is the only
    provider offering static-libs, remove that flag as well (reverse
    dependencies have already been updated to account for that).  While
    at it, bump to EAPI 7.
    
    People who are in dire need of static libraries or eudev in general
    can still install the older version of virtual/libudev.
    
    Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/697550
    Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>

That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?).

Or unmask 232-r2

[xanderal]

Same problem here.

Workaround is to mask

Code: Select all

>=virtual/libudev-232-r1

That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?).

Or unmask 232-r2

Is there a good reason to prefer one over the other?
virtual/libudev-232-r2 was just released a couple hours ago...

[sphakka]

Thanks for the info, @fedeliallalinea. But

Or unmask 232-r2

nope (I tried it), you need the older v215-r1. The message is clear: no eudev with "virtual/libudev-232". What's not clear to me from the bug report is if future libudev releases will support eudev (I don't use static-libs).

[fedeliallalinea]

Same problem here.

Workaround is to mask

Code: Select all

>=virtual/libudev-232-r1

That would downgrade to "virtual/libudev-215-r1" (weird: I have v232 installed, but it's no longer in tree!?).

Or unmask 232-r2

Is there a good reason to prefer one over the other?
virtual/libudev-232-r2 was just released a couple hours ago...

No if some package don't require a >=232 version.
Version 232 for to install eudev-3.2.9 I think cause by this bug.

[sphakka]

For the time being (I use OpenRC), I stick to v232 in package.mask

Code: Select all

>=virtual/libudev-232-r1
<virtual/libudev-232

Smells like eudev is lagging a bit behind...

[xanderal]

Or unmask 232-r2

nope (I tried it), you need the older v215-r1. The message is clear: no eudev with "virtual/libudev-232".

Are you sure? This is in the ebuild of 232-r2:

Code: Select all

!systemd? ( || (
        >=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
        >=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
) )

What's not clear to me from the bug report is if future libudev releases will support eudev (I don't use static-libs).

The new release note looks promising.

edited to clean up code part

[sphakka]

Are you sure? This is in the ebuild of 232-r2:

Code: Select all

!systemd? ( || (
+		>=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
+		>=sys-fs/udev-232:0/0[${MULTILIB_USEDEP},static-libs(-)?]
+	) )

I didn't work probably because sys-fs/eudev is at 3.2.5 while higher versions are masked. Will unmask and retry later.

[charles17]

I didn't work probably because sys-fs/eudev is at 3.2.5 while higher versions are masked. Will unmask and retry later.

Go back 7 posts ...

[tmcca]

Thanks for the replies by entering this

Code: Select all

 /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:	
# required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64

is a temporary fix correct? Is this the correct approach to solve this?

[xanderal]

Ok, I just finished doing an upgrade with the workaround charles17 suggested.
No errors to report, everything is working fine Thanks

[UlvHare]

Thank you all for the information! It saved me from eudev loss and a working day to restore.
Really I was shocked:

1. eudev is necessary (for desktop without systemd)
2. today update causing eudev loss in stable system
3. are we on Gentoo or on Arch?

Bad joke or developers need some rest, not work at Sunday night.

After reading this tread my workaround is:

Code: Select all

alver@hare ~ $ cat /etc/portage/package.mask/libudev
=virtual/libudev-232-r1

which downgraded it to ver. 215-r1 and let me normal daily update. Reboot... So far so good.

Waiting for stabilizing virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9... or new surprises?

[fedeliallalinea]

Waiting for stabilizing virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9... or new surprises?

No surprises, the problem arises from this bug.

Bad joke or developers need some rest, not work at Sunday night.

Maybe (I'm in no position to know) the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community.

[jserink]

Charles17 solution worked for me aswell.

In my /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords:
# required by =virtual/libudev-232-r2 (argument)
=virtual/libudev-232-r2 ~amd64
# # required by =sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 (argument)
=sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 ~amd64


Cheers,
John

[Anon-E-moose]

the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community.

The devs are too gung-ho about removing ebuilds that are considered updated.
There's really no harm in an ebuild sitting for a few days or a week to make sure the new one works properly.
In cases like this, then simply masking the upgrade would allow the currently working ebuild/installed pkg to continue to work.

[Josef.95]

Should now be fixed, see https://bugs.gentoo.org/698726#c6
A fresh

Code: Select all

emerge --sync

should now help :)

[UlvHare]

No surprises, the problem arises from this bug.

Very strange, IMO. That bug is specific for Gnome without systemd and results of such "cure" affect many more users.

Maybe (I'm in no position to know) the better solution was to mask the libudev-232-r1 package, but also developers can make mistakes and formus, irc, ml,... are here for help community.

Yes, great thanks to this forum again!

[fedeliallalinea]

No surprises, the problem arises from this bug.

Very strange, IMO. That bug is specific for Gnome without systemd and results of such "cure" affect many more users.

Now virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 are stable and problem is solved

[Chiitoo]

Moved from Installing Gentoo to Portage & Programming, as this isn't specific to installing, and others might better find it here.

[Anon-E-moose]

Now virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 are stable and problem is solved

Now if we could only do something about the devs creating the problem in the first place.

Too bad gentoo doesn't have a QA division.

[Naib]

Now virtual/libudev-232-r2 and sys-fs/eudev-3.2.9 are stable and problem is solved

Now if we could only do something about the devs creating the problem in the first place.

Too bad gentoo doesn't have a QA division.

or non-partisan dev's

...

(In reply to Michał Górny from comment #9)
> (In reply to Anton Bolshakov from comment #8)
> > The current stable tree is broken. Please sync stabilization and do it at
> > one go.
>
> It is not broken. It simply doesn't support eudev anymore. This may change
> in the future but doesn't change the fact that eudev is barely alive.


The deptree is broken, which basically is a (QA) violation.

spinning something as not supported when it was a QA problem is low

[Anon-E-moose]

spinning something as not supported when it was a QA problem is low

Yeah, but it works if your goal is to destabilize/destroy gentoo.