Ticket #21868 (closed defect: fixed)
glib2 update to 2.22.1 fails - conflict with e2fsprogs
| Reported by: | dweber@… | Owned by: | ryandesign@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | 1.8.1 |
| Keywords: | Cc: | ||
| Port: | glib2 e2fsprogs |
Description (last modified by macsforever2000@…) (diff)
$ sudo port upgrade -uR glib2 Password: ---> Computing dependencies for glib2 ---> Fetching glib2 ---> Attempting to fetch glib-2.22.1.tar.bz2 from http://distfiles.macports.org/glib2 ---> Verifying checksum(s) for glib2 ---> Extracting glib2 ---> Applying patches to glib2 ---> Configuring glib2 ---> Building glib2 ---> Staging glib2 into destroot ---> Deactivating glib2 @2.22.0_1+darwin ---> Computing dependencies for glib2Error: Couldn't activate glib2 2.22.1_0: Can't install glib2 because conflicting ports are installed: e2fsprogs
Change History
comment:3 Changed 4 years ago by ryandesign@…
- Status changed from new to closed
- Resolution set to invalid
- Summary changed from glib2 update to 2.2.1 fails - conflict with e2fsprogs to glib2 update to 2.22.1 fails - conflict with e2fsprogs
glib2 conflicts with e2fsprogs. Deactivate e2fsprogs before trying to install glib2.
comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by dweber@…
- Status changed from closed to reopened
- Resolution invalid deleted
Why is this a solution to the conflict? Presumably these two ports provide a different set of files, no?
Is it true that glib2 provides EVERYTHING in e2fsprogs? If so, is it possible to change all dependencies on e2fsprogs so they depend on glib2 (and furthermore, remove the e2fsprogs port)?
comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by ryandesign@…
As far as I know, glib2 provides nothing in e2fsprogs. But glib2 fails to install if e2fsprogs is active. Therefore, the solution to that issue was to add "conflicts e2fsprogs" to the glib2 portfile. I think it's fine to reactivate e2fsprogs after you install glib2.
comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by toby@…
I fixed some stuff with e2fsprogs and the uuid.h header. I'd bet the conflict is no longer an issue.


Better formatting: