Mailing List Archive

Hello,

On 6/19/22 21:38, Dale wrote:
> Anyone have ideas on this?  I mess up something?  Catch the tree in a
> bad state?  Something else I'm not aware of?  It's not making sense to
> me yet.  :/

sys-fs/udev has been replaced by a USE flag on the
sys-apps/systemd-utils package. When you updated your system, portage
most likely installed systemd-utils with the 'udev' USE flag by default.
It also replaces sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles, which is also included in
your --depclean.

You can read more about this change here :
https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2022-04-19-systemd-utils.html

Regards,
Julien

Dale wrote:
> Howdy all,
>
> Once a month or so, or when told to by a news item, I run emerge with
> the --depclean option.  I look at the list in case there something there
> I want to keep or something that shouldn't be removed, like gcc or
> something.  I ran it a bit ago and got back this: 
>
>
>>>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:
>>  dev-lang/vala
>>     selected: 0.52.10
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 0.54.7 0.56.1
>>
>>  sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles
>>     selected: 250
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: none
>>
>>  dev-libs/rapidjson
>>     selected: 1.1.0-r3
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: none
>>
>>  sys-fs/udev
>>     selected: 250
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: none
>>
>>  sys-devel/clang
>>     selected: 13.0.1
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 14.0.4
>>
>>  sys-devel/clang-runtime
>>     selected: 13.0.1
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 14.0.4
>>
>>  sys-libs/compiler-rt
>>     selected: 13.0.1
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 14.0.4
>>
>>  sys-libs/compiler-rt-sanitizers
>>     selected: 13.0.1
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 14.0.4
>>
>>  sys-devel/llvm
>>     selected: 13.0.1
>>    protected: none
>>      omitted: 14.0.4
>>
>> All selected packages: =sys-devel/clang-runtime-13.0.1
>> =sys-libs/compiler-rt-13.0.1 =sys-libs/compiler-rt-sanitizers-13.0.1
>> =sys-devel/clang-13.0.1 =dev-lang/vala-0.52.10
>> =sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles-250 =sys-fs/udev-250 =sys-devel/llvm-13.0.1
>> =dev-libs/rapidjson-1.1.0-r3
>>
>>>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.
>> Would you like to unmerge these packages? [Yes/No]
>
>
> The part that has me concerned is sys-fs/udev.  There's another that I'm
> not sure about but that one caught my eye right away.  I don't recall
> seeing anything posted on -dev about switching to something else or udev
> no longer being needed and being removed.  I'm confused here.  Isn't the
> virtual supposed to prevent this from being removed?  Is this a portage
> change or did I mess something up somewhere? 
>
> This is what I show here depending either on the virtual or udev itself. 
>
>
>> root@fireball / # equery d sys-fs/udev
>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/udev:
>> virtual/libudev-232-r7 (!systemd ?
>> sys-fs/udev[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?])
>> virtual/udev-217-r5 (sys-fs/udev)
>> root@fireball / # equery d virtual/udev
>>  * These packages depend on virtual/udev:
>> app-crypt/zulucrypt-5.5.0_pre20180223 (udev ? virtual/udev)
>> app-pda/usbmuxd-1.1.1 (virtual/udev)
>> dev-libs/libinput-1.20.1 (virtual/udev)
>> media-video/vlc-3.0.17.4 (udev ? virtual/udev)
>> net-misc/dhcpcd-9.4.1 (udev ? virtual/udev)
>> sys-block/f3-8.0 (extra ? virtual/udev)
>> sys-fs/cryptmount-5.3.3-r2 (udev ? virtual/udev)
>> sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-34 (>=virtual/udev-217)
>> sys-fs/udisks-2.9.4 (virtual/udev)
>> sys-kernel/dracut-055-r4 (virtual/udev)
>> sys-libs/libblockdev-2.26 (lvm ? virtual/udev)
>> sys-power/nut-2.7.4-r8 (virtual/udev)
>> sys-power/upower-0.99.17 (kernel_linux ? virtual/udev)
>> virtual/dev-manager-0-r2 (virtual/udev)
>> x11-misc/spacefm-1.0.6-r1 (virtual/udev)
>> xfce-base/thunar-4.16.11 (udisks ? virtual/udev)
>> xfce-extra/thunar-volman-4.16.0 (virtual/udev)
>> root@fireball / # 
>
> This is the packages I have installed containing udev. 
>
>
>> root@fireball / # equery list *udev*
>>  * Searching for *udev* ...
>> [IP-] [  ] dev-libs/libgudev-237-r1:0/0
>> [IP-] [  ] sys-fs/udev-250:0
>> [IP-] [  ] sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-34:0
>> [IP-] [  ] virtual/libudev-232-r7:0/1
>> [IP-] [  ] virtual/udev-217-r5:0
>> root@fireball / # 
>
>
> Anyone have ideas on this?  I mess up something?  Catch the tree in a
> bad state?  Something else I'm not aware of?  It's not making sense to
> me yet.  :/
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-) 
>


I think I found something but not sure if it is what I think it is.  The
virtual says it needs one of the following:


sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev]
sys-fs/udev
>=sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1
>=sys-apps/systemd-217


Since systemd-utils is at the top, I looked to see if it was installed
or not, and it is. 

[IP-] [  ] sys-apps/systemd-utils-250.7:0

as is:

sys-fs/udev-250


So, I think it wants to remove udev and use the other.  This is what
depends on the systemd package. 


root@fireball / # equery d sys-apps/systemd-utils
 * These packages depend on sys-apps/systemd-utils:
sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles-250 (sys-apps/systemd-utils[tmpfiles])
sys-fs/udev-250
(sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev,abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?])
virtual/libudev-232-r7 (!systemd ?
sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev,abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?])
virtual/tmpfiles-0-r3 (!prefix-guest ? sys-apps/systemd-utils[tmpfiles])
virtual/udev-217-r5 (sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev])
root@fireball / #


At this point, I'm stumped.  It looks like something depends on itself
or something.  < me thinks > 

Does this helps anybody that understands this?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Julien Roy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 6/19/22 21:38, Dale wrote:
>> Anyone have ideas on this?  I mess up something?  Catch the tree in a
>> bad state?  Something else I'm not aware of?  It's not making sense to
>> me yet.  :/
>
> sys-fs/udev has been replaced by a USE flag on the
> sys-apps/systemd-utils package. When you updated your system, portage
> most likely installed systemd-utils with the 'udev' USE flag by
> default. It also replaces sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles, which is also
> included in your --depclean.
>
> You can read more about this change here :
> https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2022-04-19-systemd-utils.html
>
> Regards,
> Julien


I don't recall that news item but for my memory, that was a long time
ago.  So, it is safe to remove udev and it is being replaced by
systemd-utils?  OK.  I can live with that.  I did a news list and
grepped for udev.  It didn't find that given that name and I may have
missed it with that name since I don't use systemd.  Oh well. 

Now I got to remember to keep a eye out for changes to this instead of
udev.  o_O 

Thanks much.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> root@fireball / # equery d sys-apps/systemd-utils
>  * These packages depend on sys-apps/systemd-utils:
> sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles-250 (sys-apps/systemd-utils[tmpfiles])
> sys-fs/udev-250 (sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev,...])
> virtual/libudev-232-r7 (!systemd ? sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev,...])
> virtual/tmpfiles-0-r3 (!prefix-guest ? sys-apps/systemd-utils[tmpfiles])
> virtual/udev-217-r5 (sys-apps/systemd-utils[udev])

Looks completely sane:

sys-apps/systemd-tmpfiles-250 and sys-fs/udev-250
are "practically" just virtuals which only pull in
sys-apps/systemd-utils
with the corresponding USE-flags. And the "true"
virtuals for for tmpfiles and udev also depend on that
package with the corresponding USE-flags.