Daniel Frey <djqf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> WARNING: One or more updates/rebuilds have been skipped due to a
> >>> dependency conflict:
> >>>
> >>> app-text/xmlto:0
> >>>
> >>> (app-text/xmlto-0.0.26-r1:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
> >>> merge) conflicts with
> >>> >=app-text/xmlto-0.0.26-r1[text(+)] required by
> >>> >(x11-misc/xdg-utils-1.1.1-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
^^^
[...]
>>> I don't understand this because these versions are already
>>> installed on my system:
>>>
>>> [I] app-text/xmlto
>>> Available versions: 0.0.26-r1{tbz2} ~0.0.28-r1 {latex text}
>>> Installed versions: 0.0.26-r1{tbz2}(19:30:25 12/02/15)(text
>>> -latex)
>>>
>>> [I] x11-misc/xdg-utils
>>> Available versions: 1.1.1^t{tbz2} 1.1.1-r1^t{tbz2} {doc
>>> +perl} Installed versions: 1.1.1-r1^t{tbz2}(20:14:37 01/15/17)(doc
>>> perl)
[...]
> >> From what I can tell it's telling you that the xmlto package is
> >> too old. xdg-utils needs a newer version, and I suspect that it's
> >> marked unstable. If you unmask a newer version of xmlto the error
> >> will go away.
> >
> > That was also my first thought. But then I noticed the "greater or
> > equal" sign ">=". According to that, the installed version should
> > be sufficient.
>
> Whoops! I missed the '=' there. I wonder if there was a bug when it
> was evaluating dependencies.
And I realized right now, that I missed the '>' character in front
of x11-misc/xdg-utils-1.1.1-r1. Now the whole thing even makes less
sense for me.
For my logic this should mean, that xdg-utils versions greater than
1.1.1-r1 need at least xmlto version 0.0.26-r1. But maybe I just don't
understand portages logic. :-)
> > And I also expect that a stable package doesn't depend on an
> > unstable (~amd64) one.
> >
> > However you are right. Unmasking xmlto resolved the conflict.
>
> It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I can only remember
> maybe a half dozen times over the last 10-12 years. The devs do what
> they can to minimize this, I would presume.
After all, also devs are only humans. ;-)
--
Regards
wabe
