updating with pacman fails

scap · 2014-01-13 18:17:36

I am trying to run a pacman -Syu and get the following error.

error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: virtualbox-guest-utils: requires X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION<15

Is there a way around this?

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 18:19:49

Yeah, wait for virtualbox-guest-utils to be updated (update is in the [testing] repo, just hasn't been pushed to [community] yet).

scap · 2014-01-13 18:27:24

This box hasn't been updated in a long time and needs security patches. Is there any way to have pacman just ignore the packages in question and update everything else?

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 18:31:07

The update should happen within hours at the most.

Last edited by Scimmia (2014-01-13 18:32:06)

vanquish · 2014-01-13 18:57:33

If you want to hold a package edit your /etc/pacman.conf

IgnorePkg = virtualbox-guest-utils

Be careful! You should have very closely look on package dependency (pacman -Qi virtualbox-guest-utils) and only doing temporary!
In this case I would wait this few hours. Especially as your system is not current.

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 19:01:53

vanquish wrote:

If you want to hold a package edit your /etc/pacman.conf
IgnorePkg = virtualbox-guest-utils

If you do that, X won't work. You'll also need to ignore xorg-server and everything that's built against the new ABI.

vanquish · 2014-01-13 19:32:51

Why this will breaking X? In worst case virtualbox isn't working anymore. There is no package depending on virtualbox-guest-utils itself. For virtualbox it's the same. The package (virtualbox-guest-utils) depends on virtualbox-guest-modules gcc-libs libxmu xorg-xrandr libxfixes X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION<15). Or is there anything I've overseen. Don't bash for unknowing asking.

To be safe you can just ignore the whole virtualbox package. Or better deinstall the whole package and then upgrade.

scap · 2014-01-13 20:03:50

I did just that uninstalled and updated then reinstalled. It worked but I didn't like that I had to do that. Can someone explain what is actually going on here that causes this problem.

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 20:12:58

vanquish wrote:

Why this will breaking X? In worst case virtualbox isn't working anymore. There is no package depending on virtualbox-guest-utils itself. For virtualbox it's the same. The package (virtualbox-guest-utils) depends on virtualbox-guest-modules gcc-libs libxmu xorg-xrandr libxfixes X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION<15). Or is there anything I've overseen. Don't bash for unknowing asking.
To be safe you can just ignore the whole virtualbox package. Or better deinstall the whole package and then upgrade.

virtualbox-guest-utils is only installed when Arch is installed in a VM, not as the host. It contains the xorg drivers for running inside of VirtualBox.

scap · 2014-01-13 20:21:58

actually it looks like I may have just broke my install

[scap@dev ~]$ sudo pacman -S virtualbox-guest-utils
[sudo] password for scap: 
resolving dependencies...
warning: cannot resolve "X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION<15", a dependency of "virtualbox-guest-utils"
:: The following package cannot be upgraded due to unresolvable dependencies:
      virtualbox-guest-utils

:: Do you want to skip the above package for this upgrade? [y/N] 
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: virtualbox-guest-utils: requires X-ABI-VIDEODRV_VERSION<15

Guess I will have to wait a few hours and try again.

Last edited by scap (2014-01-13 20:22:39)

vanquish · 2014-01-13 20:22:07

Thank you @ Scimmia!

Last edited by vanquish (2014-01-13 20:23:07)

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 20:25:12

scap, is there some problem with waiting until the new package hits [community]? I warned you that it would break X.

scap · 2014-01-13 21:34:55

You did warn me. I guess I am more or less upset that this could even occur at all. Not really sure what the circumstances are that cause this but it seems to me that if this happens to me a lot it would be unacceptable. I shouldn't have to wait hours or days to install or upgrade an OS and expect that it works. Maybe I am asking for something unreasonable but I don't think that I am. I needed the updates to get my work done. Now instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

jasonwryan · 2014-01-13 21:43:08

scap wrote:

You did warn me. I guess I am more or less upset that this could even occur at all. Not really sure what the circumstances are that cause this but it seems to me that if this happens to me a lot it would be unacceptable. I shouldn't have to wait hours or days to install or upgrade an OS and expect that it works. Maybe I am asking for something unreasonable but I don't think that I am. I needed the updates to get my work done. Now instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

Yes, it is quite unacceptable. Those lazy developers are clearly just wasting your time by not devoting enough of their spare time to pushing out packages immediately.

vanquish · 2014-01-13 22:11:35

I'm sorry for posting this solution. I didn't know this arch installation is running on a virtual machine. If I had known this I have warned more for using this solution.

@ scap: I know it's to late. But I insist you to switch your filesystem to btrfs. I think it's essential nowdays. Snapshots are a great advantage compared to the past. Especially on Distributions like Archlinux or Gentoo.

Scimmia · 2014-01-13 22:58:26

scap wrote:

I needed the updates to get my work done. Now instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

This is why I asked if it was a problem to wait. If it is, enabling [testing] and [community-testing] is an option, although not a great option since it potentially can add packages that haven't been shown to be stable. Using the ARM (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … ck_Machine) is another option, you can update the entire system to yesterday before the xorg-server upgrade happened.

mir91 · 2014-01-13 23:09:04

jasonwryan wrote:

scap wrote:
You did warn me. I guess I am more or less upset that this could even occur at all. Not really sure what the circumstances are that cause this but it seems to me that if this happens to me a lot it would be unacceptable. I shouldn't have to wait hours or days to install or upgrade an OS and expect that it works. Maybe I am asking for something unreasonable but I don't think that I am. I needed the updates to get my work done. Now instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

Yes, it is quite unacceptable. Those lazy developers are clearly just wasting your time by not devoting enough of their spare time to pushing out packages immediately.

I'm on this forum because I've been wondering about that pacman message too.
I know where you're coming from, saying that sarcastic stuff, but unfortunately no matter how much time gets devoted, breaking stuff is still a bad thing.

graysky · 2014-01-13 23:32:38

Enable [community-testing] in /etc/pacman.conf and then refresh and update.

jasonwryan · 2014-01-13 23:39:10

mir91 wrote:

jasonwryan wrote:
scap wrote:
You did warn me. I guess I am more or less upset that this could even occur at all. Not really sure what the circumstances are that cause this but it seems to me that if this happens to me a lot it would be unacceptable. I shouldn't have to wait hours or days to install or upgrade an OS and expect that it works. Maybe I am asking for something unreasonable but I don't think that I am. I needed the updates to get my work done. Now instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

Yes, it is quite unacceptable. Those lazy developers are clearly just wasting your time by not devoting enough of their spare time to pushing out packages immediately.
I'm on this forum because I've been wondering about that pacman message too.
I know where you're coming from, saying that sarcastic stuff, but unfortunately no matter how much time gets devoted, breaking stuff is still a bad thing.

I have no sympathy for someone who shows up here saying there machine has not been updated in "a long time" and then complains that packages are not available when they want them. That's not breakage, that's just PEBKAC.

smokex · 2014-01-14 00:52:40

I wonder if has made a comparison to other operating systems/distributions. Crying about waiting a day for THE LATEST STABLE SOFTWARE? On no other operating system/distribution could you even dream of having this set of recent, stable software.

ewaller · 2014-01-14 01:35:53

Last I checked, Arch was free -- as in beer. It is also maintained by people who give freely of their personal time. Please say "Thank you for your efforts" and they will be happy.

WorMzy · 2014-01-14 02:27:03

If only Arch gave users the ability to compile their own packagess, so they wouldn't have to wait for updates that they can't wait for...

thiagowfx · 2014-01-14 02:33:23

jasonwryan wrote:

PEBKAC.

Today I learned a new term.

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/P/PEBKAC.html
(if you like verbose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_error)

Fortunately there is ARM. But I think OP could use the pacman cache if his system had been upgraded often...

Last edited by thiagowfx (2014-01-14 02:35:22)

Allan · 2014-01-14 02:54:52

If only someone had filed a bug saying virtualbox had not been moved from [testing] with Xorg-1.15... Then it could have been fixed immediately.

frank604 · 2014-01-14 03:38:23

Allan wrote:

If only someone had filed a bug saying virtualbox had not been moved from [testing] with Xorg-1.15... Then it could have been fixed immediately.

Why file a bug report and get the issue fixed right away, or any other solution, when you can ...

scap wrote:

instead of doing work I am sitting here waiting for a package to get pushed out...

Last edited by frank604 (2014-01-14 03:38:39)

Arch Linux

#1 2014-01-13 18:17:36

updating with pacman fails

#2 2014-01-13 18:19:49

Re: updating with pacman fails

#3 2014-01-13 18:27:24

Re: updating with pacman fails

#4 2014-01-13 18:31:07

Re: updating with pacman fails

#5 2014-01-13 18:57:33

Re: updating with pacman fails

#6 2014-01-13 19:01:53

Re: updating with pacman fails

#7 2014-01-13 19:32:51

Re: updating with pacman fails

#8 2014-01-13 20:03:50

Re: updating with pacman fails

#9 2014-01-13 20:12:58

Re: updating with pacman fails

#10 2014-01-13 20:21:58

Re: updating with pacman fails

#11 2014-01-13 20:22:07

Re: updating with pacman fails

#12 2014-01-13 20:25:12

Re: updating with pacman fails

#13 2014-01-13 21:34:55

Re: updating with pacman fails

#14 2014-01-13 21:43:08

Re: updating with pacman fails

#15 2014-01-13 22:11:35

Re: updating with pacman fails

#16 2014-01-13 22:58:26

Re: updating with pacman fails

#17 2014-01-13 23:09:04

Re: updating with pacman fails

#18 2014-01-13 23:32:38

Re: updating with pacman fails

#19 2014-01-13 23:39:10

Re: updating with pacman fails

#20 2014-01-14 00:52:40

Re: updating with pacman fails

#21 2014-01-14 01:35:53

Re: updating with pacman fails

#22 2014-01-14 02:27:03

Re: updating with pacman fails

#23 2014-01-14 02:33:23

Re: updating with pacman fails

#24 2014-01-14 02:54:52

Re: updating with pacman fails

#25 2014-01-14 03:38:23

Re: updating with pacman fails

Board footer