On Tue, Mar 14 2017, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 14/03/2017 16:43, allan gottlieb wrote:
>> I update roughly twice a week. On one machine (full output below) I was
>> told that libinput and evdev are blocking xorg-drivers
>>
>> [blocks B ] <x11-drivers/xf86-input-libinput-0.20.0
>> ("<x11-drivers/xf86-input-libinput-0.20.0" is blocking
>> x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.19)
>> [blocks B ] <x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev-2.10.4
>> ("<x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev-2.10.4" is blocking
>> x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.19)
>>
>> However the merge does propose to update xorg-drivers
>> [ebuild U ] x11-base/xorg-drivers-1.19 [1.18-r1] VIDEO_CARDS="-ark%
>> -i915% -i965% (-newport) -sis%"
>>
>> It also proposes to update libinput and evdev
>> [ebuild U ] x11-drivers/xf86-input-libinput-0.24.0 [0.19.0]
>> [ebuild U ] x11-drivers/xf86-input-evdev-2.10.5 [2.10.3]
>>
>> I do see that the versions of libinput and evdev to be used are higher
>> than the versions that would block xorg-drivers. I am wondering why in
>> this case emerge is telling me about the block (in red with a capital B)
>> and more importantly would appreciate confirmation that I should let the
>> emerge proceed.
>
>
> Portage found a solution that satisfies all constraints, so you should
> let it proceed.
>
> Did you run emerge with -v to get the above?
> That looks like portage is doing it's usual -v thing which is to core
> dump to your console in the hope that maybe you can figure it out and
> you are willing to play the game called "let's find out what portage
> thinks it means today!"
>
> I don't understand why those blockers are marked hard, as portage found
> a solution. The blocker lines are really telling you why portage wants
> to upgrade your libinput and evdev drivers - the current ones won't work
> with your current drivers.
>
> Which is all totally pointless, as newer versions of everything are
> available and you want a full update. There's very little point in
> software going to great lengths to tell you why it won't keep old
> versions when you explicitly told it to not keep old versions :-)
Thank you for the confirmation! I also doubt the use of B when b would
be appropriated. No this was not a --verbose run. I would guess that
output would be even less illuminating.
allan
