Mailing List Archive

On 11/30/2012 10:09 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
>
> Nope it is correct. setools requires swig-1 whereas others require
> swig-2. The dependencies are build-only dependencies so in theory
> portage can downgrade/upgrade swig as needed.
>
> If you upgrade setools first and then @world, does that make it happy?
>
It was happy to do setools by itself before the world updates, but I
didn't actually run it. I instead masked the setools and ran world. I
then saw your message and unmasked setools and ran it by itself and it
happily downgraded swig and installed.

--
Stan & HD Tashi Grad 10/08 Edgewood, NM SWR
PR - Cindy and Jenny - Sammamish, WA NWR
http://www.cci.org

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 03:25:37PM -0700, Stan Sander wrote:
> It was happy to do setools by itself before the world updates, but I
> didn't actually run it. I instead masked the setools and ran world. I
> then saw your message and unmasked setools and ran it by itself and it
> happily downgraded swig and installed.

It's still a sad situation. The libsemanage package requires swig-2 whereas
setools requires swig-1. However, they are both needed (libsemanage is
needed by policycoreutils, which needs setools) and swig is not slotted so
portage will need to upgrade/downgrade accordingly :-(

Swig 2.0 isn't compatible with setools, because setools uses the (wrong)
constructor/destructor declarations:

typedef struct A {
A()
B()
} B

In the above example, A() is the correct constructor as per whatever
standard it was (can't remember) whereas setools used the B() logic. In
swig-1, this was still accepted, but somewhere in swig-2 it wasn't.

I tried fixing it myself, but it collides with the functions and methods
that are used by tools like apol, and I haven't been able to solve that. And
since I'm limited in time, I reverted the changes and just went along with
the swig-1 dependency.

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen

On 12/03/2012 01:02 AM, Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I tried fixing it myself, but it collides with the functions and
> methods that are used by tools like apol, and I haven't been able to
> solve that. And since I'm limited in time, I reverted the changes and
> just went along with the swig-1 dependency. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen

Has something changed in portage or one of the ebuilds? It seems now
that portage refuses to upgrade swig:

WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency conflict:

dev-lang/swig:0

(dev-lang/swig-2.0.8::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with
<dev-lang/swig-2.0 required by (app-admin/setools-3.3.7-r6::gentoo,
installed)


--
Stan & HD Tashi Grad 10/08 Edgewood, NM SWR
PR - Cindy and Jenny - Sammamish, WA NWR
http://www.cci.org

On Dec 8, 2012 1:22 AM, "Stan Sander" <stsander@sblan.net> wrote:
> Has something changed in portage or one of the ebuilds? It seems now
> that portage refuses to upgrade swig:

Try upgrading one package first (not swig but the package that requires it)
and then the rest. I suggest upgrading setools separately as I think it is
the only one depending on swig-1.