On 2026-03-08, Jack wrote: > On 2026.03.08 12:37, [email protected] wrote: >> On Sunday, 8 March 2026 15:58:47 Greenwich Mean Time Nuno Silva wrote: >> > On 2026-03-08, [email protected] wrote: >> > > Greetings, >> > > >> > > I've finally managed to get a more-or-less working system put >> together, >> > > having been going round in circles, banging my head on convenient >> walls >> > > on the way, since before Christmas. >> > > >> > > I've had to abandon my favourite systemd-boot, having been unable >> to get >> > > it to work (it doesn't behave the way the handbook describes). >> Instead, >> > > I've had to fall back on the dreaded grub. >> > > >> > > The point of this gripe, though, is that I cannot run an 'emerge >> -e >> > > @world' >> > > any more, because systemd insists on being included. Well, being >> masked >> > > stops it, but being explicitly excluded on the command line does >> not. >> > > >> > > Has anyone here a reliable method of ensuring that systemd stays >> out of >> > > the >> > > way? >> > >> > If it's installed, use emerge -pvc systemd to see what's keeping it >> in >> > the dependence graph. >> > >> > If it's not installed, add -tv to the emerge -e options (and pipe it >> > through a pager, or do --pretend and write to a file to look at >> after >> > emerge completes the output) to get some indication of at least one >> of >> > the packages that is pulling it. >> >> I didn't get a tree, just the usual block of packages that were >> supposed to >> require systemd. This was the block: >> >> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "sys-apps/systemd:0/2=" have been >> masked. >> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your >> request: >> - sys-apps/systemd-9999::gentoo (masked by: package.mask, missing >> keyword) >> - sys-apps/systemd-259.2::gentoo (masked by: package.mask, ~amd64 >> keyword) >> - sys-apps/systemd-259.1::gentoo (masked by: package.mask, ~amd64 >> keyword) >> - sys-apps/systemd-259::gentoo (masked by: package.mask, ~amd64 >> keyword) >> - sys-apps/systemd-258.3::gentoo (masked by: package.mask) >> >> (dependency required by "sys-fs/lvm2-2.03.22-r7::gentoo" [binary]) >> (dependency required by "sys-fs/cryptsetup-2.8.3-r1::gentoo" [binary]) >> (dependency required by "sys-libs/libblockdev-3.4.0::gentoo" [binary]) >> (dependency required by "sys-fs/udisks-2.11.0-r1::gentoo" [binary]) >> (dependency required by "kde-frameworks/solid-6.22.0::gentoo" >> [binary]) >> (dependency required by "kde-frameworks/kio-6.22.1::gentoo" [binary]) >> (dependency required by "kde-frameworks/kcmutils-6.22.0::gentoo" >> [binary]) >> (dependency required by "kde-plasma/keditfiletype-6.5.5::gentoo" >> [binary]) > > I note that all of these are binary. Are there any binary builds which > do not use systemd? (I don't know as I don't use binary builds.) In > my case "-systemd" in make.conf seems to be enough to avoid any use of > systemd.
My current first guess, not really having any experience with the current incarnation of official Gentoo binary packages, would be an incorrect profile. (BTW, this might be a good read, re: binary package compatibility between profiles: <news://gmane.io/[email protected]> ) -- Nuno Silva
