On 2022.10.11 17:43, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 16:02:52 -0400, Jack wrote:
> > For example, "emerge -1 dev-ruby/thor" gives me
>> !!! Problem resolving dependencies for dev-ruby/thor ... done!
>> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "dev-ruby/thor" has unmet
>> - dev-ruby/thor-1.2.1::gentoo USE="-doc -test" ABI_X86="(64)"
>> RUBY_TARGETS="-ruby27 (-ruby30) (-ruby31)"
> ruby30 and ruby31 are in parentheses, which means they are not
Given everything below - what other reasons might there be for this?
I've yet to find any pattern of the difference between the ebuilds for
the small number of dev-ruby packages that show this problem, and those
for the the thirty plus which have installed just fine.
> > The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
> > any-of ( ruby_targets_ruby27 ruby_targets_ruby30
> ruby_targets_ruby31 )
>> I would expect USE_RUBY="ruby31" to translate into
>> ruby_targets_ruby31, but even explicitly adding that to package.use
>> has no effect.
> The ebuild contains USE_RUBY="ruby26 ruby27" ruby_add_bdepend "
Hmm. It looks to me that line should probably be 'USE_RUBY="ruby26
ruby27 ruby30 ruby31" ruby_add_bdepend "' However, as it only affects
the required ruby version for two depedencies only if the test use flag
is set (it is not) I'm not sure why it would matter.
I suppose it is likely just a typo in the ebuild. They removed ruby25
from 1.1.0 but didn't add the newer ruby versions. Actually even 1.1.0
may be broken as it includes ruby30 in USE_RUBY but not on the
ruby_add_bdepend line. However, I just made an -r1 in my local
overlay, adding the new ruby versions to that line, and I still get the
same error. So I'm actually still stuck figuring out why this ebuild
won't take ruby31.
> Have you tried setting RUBY_TARGETS to ruby27 for this package?
Why would I do that if I don't have ruby-2.7 installed, nor do I want
> I must say I find the whole RUBY_* thing even more troublesome than
> the PYTHON_* stuff, and that's saying something!
That I agree with. If I knew then what I know now, I would have argued
much more vigorously against using Ruby on Rails for this web site.
But that's fodder another entire thread.
> Neil Bothwick