On 05/06/14 14:39, Dutch Ingraham wrote: > On 06/04/2014 08:02 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: >> Gentoo doesn't have write access to ::mate-overlay, it's completely >> unofficial >> Gentoo developers are just as much users as you are for ::mate-overlay >> >> Enough said >> >> - Samuli >> >> > Sorry, but this isn't just a MATE overlay problem. Once I made your > suggested changes, the MATE "mask change" requests disappeared. What I > did get was XFCE mask requirements: > > [snip] > > The following mask changes are necessary to proceed: > (see "package.unmask" in the portage(5) man page for more details) > # required by xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.10 > # required by @selected > # required by @world (argument) > # /etc/portage/package.mask: > # problems with systemd, upower shift to upower.pm.utils > =xfce-base/xfce4-session-4.10.1-r1 > # required by virtual/udev-208-r2 > # required by sys-power/upower-0.9.23-r3 > # required by xfce-base/xfce4-session-4.10.1-r1[udev] > # required by xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.10 > # required by @selected > # required by @world (argument) > # /etc/portage/package.mask: > # problems with systemd, upower shift to upower.pm.utils > =sys-apps/systemd-212-r5 > # required by sys-apps/systemd-212-r5[-vanilla] > # required by sys-power/upower-0.9.23-r3 > # required by xfce-base/xfce4-session-4.10.1-r1[udev] > # required by xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.10 > # required by @selected > # required by @world (argument) > # /etc/portage/package.mask: > # problems with systemd, upower shift to upower.pm.utils > =sys-apps/gentoo-systemd-integration-4 > > [snip] > > I had already <emerge - C>'d those two XFCE applications because, early > in this process an <equery depends upower> had shown them to be > dependent upon "upower" even after emerging "upower-pm-utils." I have > no confidence at this point that my particular problem is reasonably > solvable, as I have been caught in this circle for three days now. >
There is no need to mask any Xfce packages, in fact, masking them would cause more blockers. So that output would be bogus, as it would include the wrong Xfce masks, and futhermore it's only end of the output, so it wouldn't tell the necessary information required for solving it anyway. Remove anykind of Xfce masks and post complete output, and don't forget to use the --tree flag (-t) to see what is pulling in what. That is, if you still want help solving the issue. - Samuli
