Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 24.06.2011 02:10, schrieb Neil Bothwick: On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation can you get? It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs, but all in one go, not one problem at a time. The feature is not bad, but how it is implemented is. With autounmask you get a notice that you have something to change, then look up to the portage presented list and see that the changes are already there. Then you are wondering why portage says that you have to do something that is already done and assume it is a bug. Such a reaction started this thread. Now that I know how to read it and what to expect I can work with it and see that it is not so bad after all. The change was unexpected and contrary to reasonable expectation mainly because there was no information before or after this change. It needed this thread to clear how it works and how to read ist. Greetings Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 23.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Yohan Pereira: On Thursday 23 Jun 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler wrote: d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any real gentoo user isnt portage itself a huge amount of automation? :P Yes, but a good ol' automation :-P signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 23.06.2011 00:58, schrieb Neil Bothwick: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote: This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) In what way is it bad? It is bad because a) it is new, and new stuff is always evil :-P b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any real gentoo user :-D Greetings Sebastian signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
2011/6/22 Sebastian Beßler sebast...@darkmetatron.de: Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. Sorry for the confusion by mixing up FEATURES with EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. I did not have a Gentoo machine at hand when writing this. -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thursday 23 June 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly: Am 23.06.2011 00:58, schrieb Neil Bothwick: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote: This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) In what way is it bad? It is bad because a) it is new, and new stuff is always evil :-P b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if WTF? followed by lots of indignation c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any real gentoo user :-D I agree, it's all bad. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thursday 23 June 2011 13:31:10 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: 2011/6/22 Sebastian Beßler sebast...@darkmetatron.de: Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. Sorry for the confusion by mixing up FEATURES with EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. I did not have a Gentoo machine at hand when writing this. No worries, I had also assumed it was a FEATURE. I'd read about it in Changelogs long before you posted but paid little attention - it's something I wouldn't use, so could ignore it. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thursday 23 Jun 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler wrote: d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any real gentoo user isnt portage itself a huge amount of automation? :P -- - Yohan Pereira A man can do as he will, but not will as he will - Schopenhauer
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly: b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if WTF? followed by lots of indignation Ah, the old we do it that way because that's the way it's always been done argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad. c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning Apart from the elog messages? d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any real gentoo user :-D What are you talking about? The default setting only displays the changes that need to be made, there is no automation. You need to enable a setting, one that only an idiot would enable without adding --ask too, before anything is automatically written to a file. I agree, it's all bad. Here's the change: Old way: Portage complained about a flag or mask setting that needed to be changed. You changed it and tried again. Portage complained about another change it needed. Rinse and repeat until either all requirements are satisfied or you give up in disgust. New way: Portage gives you a list of all the changes that need to be made and lets you either make them yourself or tells you about an option to have it do it for you. I thought even Gentoo users believed in letting the computer do all the tedious works, otherwise they'd be running LFS. -- Neil Bothwick UNILINGUAL: American. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if WTF? followed by lots of indignation Ah, the old we do it that way because that's the way it's always been done argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad. The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it in this way is bad. Why? Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation can you get? Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow. All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues. Sure, it's a contrived example, but it's also a very good example of why one never suddenly and without warning changes default behaviour to the opposite. Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options. Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a way that it catches old time users by surprise. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On 6/23/2011 6:31 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if WTF? followed by lots of indignation Ah, the old we do it that way because that's the way it's always been done argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad. The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it in this way is bad. Why? Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation can you get? I thought the old behavior was portage would tell me why it's not going to do anything, vs. the new behavior of portage will tell me why it's not going to do anything, plus offer to fix it for me. Unless I'm missing something about the pre-auto-unmask behavior? (Which is entirely likely..) --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:56:19 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote: I thought the old behavior was portage would tell me why it's not going to do anything, vs. the new behavior of portage will tell me why it's not going to do anything, plus offer to fix it for me. Not quite. The old behaviour was that portage would tell you the first reason it wasn't going to do anything. You had to fix that and try again to get the second reason, again and again. -- Neil Bothwick Minds are like parachutes; they only function when fully open. * Sir James Dewar signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation can you get? It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs, but all in one go, not one problem at a time. Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow. All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues. Sure, it's a contrived example, Not only contrived, but irrelevant. Because tcpwrappers actually does something. If your USE flags are unsuitable, portage actually does nothing. All that's changed is how it tells you why it has done nothing. Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options. Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a way that it catches old time users by surprise. I must admit, although I read about the new option, probably in an elog message, I was surprised the first time it kicked in when I hadn't turned it on. Although it was not a bad surprised and I then recalled that the message had explained that this was now the default behaviour. One of the unwritten rules of Gentoo is that if you don't read elog messages, you can expect to get burned. -- Neil Bothwick What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered plant? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
# emerge -av claws-mail These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0 USE=berkdb gnutls sasl ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile 1,631 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 2,470 kB [ebuild N ] www-client/dillo-2.2 USE=gif jpeg png ssl -doc - ipv6 616 kB [ebuild N ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1 USE=crypt dbus dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification - bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface 6,921 kB Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me to set it explicitly? -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com: # emerge -av claws-mail These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0 USE=berkdb gnutls sasl ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile 1,631 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 2,470 kB [ebuild N ] www-client/dillo-2.2 USE=gif jpeg png ssl -doc - ipv6 616 kB [ebuild N ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1 USE=crypt dbus dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification - bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface 6,921 kB Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me to set it explicitly? I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with USE=-cairo if you just type emerge -av fltk? -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: 2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com: # emerge -av claws-mail These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0 USE=berkdb gnutls sasl ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile 1,631 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 2,470 kB [ebuild N ] www-client/dillo-2.2 USE=gif jpeg png ssl -doc - ipv6 616 kB [ebuild N ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1 USE=crypt dbus dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification - bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface 6,921 kB Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me to set it explicitly? I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with USE=-cairo if you just type emerge -av fltk? emerge -av fltk gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't seem to be causing this change in behaviour: RDEPEND=x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=] What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use explicitly states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am not about to bloat package.use to cater for every built with use occurrence. Or perhaps it's now only looking at installed deps and not it's own dep graph when emerge runs. Portage should only care about whether the package is already built with use, or will be according to the dep graph -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with USE=-cairo if you just type emerge -av fltk? emerge -av fltk gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't seem to be causing this change in behaviour: RDEPEND=x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=] What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use explicitly states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am not about to bloat package.use to cater for every built with use occurrence. Or perhaps it's now only looking at installed deps and not it's own dep graph when emerge runs. Portage should only care about whether the package is already built with use, or will be according to the dep graph So you get the same recommendation about the use flag change? If you have USE=cairo in make.conf or it is enabled via some profile (desktop?) you have to add =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo to package.use to override this on a per package basis. I think there is no way around this. -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo renderer years ago. -- Neil Bothwick Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 11:31:09 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: 2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with USE=-cairo if you just type emerge -av fltk? emerge -av fltk gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't seem to be causing this change in behaviour: RDEPEND=x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=] What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use explicitly states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am not about to bloat package.use to cater for every built with use occurrence. Or perhaps it's now only looking at installed deps and not it's own dep graph when emerge runs. Portage should only care about whether the package is already built with use, or will be according to the dep graph So you get the same recommendation about the use flag change? No, I meant the output was the same as: [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 2,470 kB I didn't run an emerge -p dillo to see what that would do, I did meanwhile add an entry to package.use to make portage shut up and do what I want (install claws) If you have USE=cairo in make.conf or it is enabled via some profile (desktop?) you have to add =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo to package.use to override this on a per package basis. I think there is no way around this. I have only the defaults: # grep -r cairo /etc/portage/* /etc/portage/package.use/package.use:x11-libs/cairo cleartype lcdfilter -qt4 /etc/portage/package.use/package.use:=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 - cairo /etc/make.profile - ../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop # emerge --info | grep cairo USE= ... cairo ... The package.use entry is new. I still don't understand why portage is making this fuss. It is saying that fltk needs to have a package.use entry for -cairo, but that's not what it needs. It needs fltk *built* that way, becuase dillo requires it and claws-mail depends on dillo. Portage's own output immediately prior clearly says that it will build fltk with USE=-cairo as part of the dependencies. This crap about package.use is a red herring, a new behaviour and rather unwanted actually. It's adding useless new stuff into the process that doesn't belong. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:47:54 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated package.use files to satisfy every built with use requirement system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and saying Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to do the right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the stuff? Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo renderer years ago. Well, that's an option. But I fear this behaviour is going to rear it's head many more times with other ebuilds. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:53:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated package.use files to satisfy every built with use requirement system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and saying Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to do the right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the stuff? Are you saying the fltk is/would be built with -cairo anyway and the recommended addition changes nothing? That sounds extremely undesirable as it would make maintaining package.use much harder. I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags for a package needed to be changed from the current settings. -- Neil Bothwick Everything takes longer than expected, even when you take into account Hoffstead's Law. - Hoffstead's Law signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
2011/6/22 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws- mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument) =x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already there per portage's own output? As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo renderer years ago. Actually it is like that since the introduction of use-dependencies like cat/pkg-ver[use] and _before_. Autounmask ist just for the users convenience to copy paste the needed changes to package.use. I guess the reason for this coming up more often is that develpopers start to use use-dependencies more often. Before the introduction of use dependencies the only possible way was to stop emerge at build time and tell the user he needs USE=X for package Y. With use dependencies it is now possible to inform the user about it when resolving the dependencies. So nothing has changed. If a package requires use settings which are different from the defaults you have to override this on a per package basis via package.use. -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 11:43:20 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:53:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated package.use files to satisfy every built with use requirement system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and saying Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to do the right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the stuff? Are you saying the fltk is/would be built with -cairo anyway and the recommended addition changes nothing? That sounds extremely undesirable as it would make maintaining package.use much harder. Ah, hang on a sec. It's not quite what I thought. The original emerge command done again, plus just fltk on it's own: # USE=dillo emerge -pv claws-mail ... Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0 USE=berkdb gnutls sasl ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile 0 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 0 kB [ebuild N ] www-client/dillo-2.2 USE=gif jpeg png ssl -doc - ipv6 0 kB [ebuild R] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1 USE=crypt dbus dillo* gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification - bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface 0 kB # emerge -pv fltk ... Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=cairo jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -debug -doc 0 kB The first and second are very different. I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags for a package needed to be changed from the current settings. Now it appears that emerge output (at least in the case of an unsatisfied emerge) is what portage *needs* to do instead of what it *will* do Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do. I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for failures. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 12:48:07 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo renderer years ago. Actually it is like that since the introduction of use-dependencies like cat/pkg-ver[use] and _before_. Autounmask ist just for the users convenience to copy paste the needed changes to package.use. I guess the reason for this coming up more often is that develpopers start to use use-dependencies more often. Per my other answer to Neil, it looks like the use handling is perfectly fine, emerge is just displaying nonsense in the list of stuff it will build. IO, IO, it's off to bgo we go :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com: Ah, hang on a sec. It's not quite what I thought. The original emerge command done again, plus just fltk on it's own: # USE=dillo emerge -pv claws-mail ... Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0 USE=berkdb gnutls sasl ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile 0 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc 0 kB [ebuild N ] www-client/dillo-2.2 USE=gif jpeg png ssl -doc - ipv6 0 kB [ebuild R ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1 USE=crypt dbus dillo* gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification - bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface 0 kB # emerge -pv fltk ... Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 USE=cairo jpeg opengl png xft xinerama zlib -debug -doc 0 kB The first and second are very different. I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags for a package needed to be changed from the current settings. Now it appears that emerge output (at least in the case of an unsatisfied emerge) is what portage *needs* to do instead of what it *will* do This is what I mentioned before. Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do. I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for failures. You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES=-autounmask. If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the required changes and tells you the changes required to your configuration. -- Regards, Daniel
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:22:00 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do. I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for failures. You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES=-autounmask. If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the required changes and tells you the changes required to your configuration. It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 13:41:57 Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:22:00 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly: Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do. I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for failures. You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES=-autounmask. If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the required changes and tells you the changes required to your configuration. It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) I'd include eselect in this. There's probably nothing scary about it, but it does make me feel nervous when I *have* to use it ... ;-) -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use. [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a comment to the file to explain the content. -- Neil Bothwick Monday is the root of all evil! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: $ emerge --info | grep FEATURES FEATURES=assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv usersandbox usersync I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use. [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a comment to the file to explain the content. Hmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For me at least. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 16:31:40 Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: $ emerge --info | grep FEATURES FEATURES=assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv usersandbox usersync You're not alone. It's not shown here either. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:31:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: Apparently so, as it doesn't show up in emerge --info here either. I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-) autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use. [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a comment to the file to explain the content. Hmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For me at least. Too right, we can't have software telling us what needs to be done to install it! What will we use Google for now? -- Neil Bothwick Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. Greetings Sebastian Beßler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:30:18 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly: Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. a, now that makes sense. Thanks! -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. Greetings Sebastian Beßler signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Sebastian Beßler wrote: Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing) autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off. So, is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in FEATURES: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. Greetings Sebastian Beßler O, I can't pass this up. That sounds so much like windoze. lol Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale: Sebastian Beßler wrote: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. O, I can't pass this up. That sounds so much like windoze. lol Dale :-) :-) This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 21:16:30 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly: Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale: Sebastian Beßler wrote: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. O, I can't pass this up. That sounds so much like windoze. lol Dale :-) :-) This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) Gentoo, the OS that you get to break with the greatest of ease. And the devs will go to extra-ordinary lengths to help you do just that. My Gentoo is like my 3 dogs - Boston Terriers - ugly as sin and they fart like troopers but I still love 'em to bits in spite^W^Wbecause of it :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 21:12:21 Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wednesday 22 June 2011 21:16:30 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly: Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale: Sebastian Beßler wrote: It is not a FEATURE its a default option NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--autounmask=n in make.conf. $ emerge --info | grep EMERGE_DEFAULT Unset: CPPFLAGS, CTARGET, EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS, INSTALL_MASK, PORTAGE_BUNZIP2_COMMAND, PORTAGE_COMPRESS, PORTAGE_COMPRESS_FLAGS, PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS is unset here, so I assume that I inherit the autounmask as a matter of course. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote: This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) In what way is it bad? Gentoo used to fail to install stuff because your USE flags were wrong and you had to go on a treasure hunt to find each one you needed to set, one at a time. Now it simply says if you want this, set these use flags on those packages and people still complain. Some people won't be happy until we go back to Grub style error messages, preferably in binary :( -- Neil Bothwick Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?
On 06/22/11 18:58, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote: This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-) Some people won't be happy until we go back to Grub style error messages, preferably in binary :( How could there possibly be a better solution than going back to the basics? :-P
