-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dave Nebinger wrote: > Here's the skinny: > > I updated iptables from 1.3.4 to 1.3.5 this weekend. Everything's cool. > > Next 'emerge --update --deep world' wants to downgrade iptables back to > 1.3.4. > > So I add '--tree' to see what package wants it downgraded, and it's > shorewall. > > I opened the shorewall ebuild, and it has a depend line for iptables > stating: >=net-firewall/iptables-1.2.4 > > Well, in my book both 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 are greater than the 1.2.4 > dependency. > > So I don't understand why portage thinks it needs to downgrade iptables > when clearly shorewall should be happy with 1.3.5. > > Anybody out there that can provide a clue? > > TIA > > Dave > > Yeah, I noticed the same upgrade/downgrade scenario. Checking portage shows that 1.3.5 has been marked unstable (~x86), however the changelog for iptables shows 1.3.5 being marked stable on x86, but no mention of being marked unstable again. Anyway my guess would be that when the devs marked it stable something cropped up, so they moved it back to unstable. Hence portage did what it should upon finding that the installed package was unstable and downgraded it to the latest stable version.
Unless there is a specific reason you need 1.3.5 over 1.3.4, then you can always add it to you package.keywords file, otherwise just wait and when it's fixed it should be moved back to stable again. Shawn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD6Bz4Qv6DFiTKHhkRAlSEAJ9GDtzzDiCupuGOCXtgbi2/LXHOJQCfWja2 vLdvWFIl6jIxiOCQ57Zh8xI= =NwJw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
