On Thursday 04 February 2010 02:04:36 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
@world.
Could be useful if implemented
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:46:17 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
A command line argument (--force?) would be fine, but you can't
complain it's annoying when you have just complained that portage
doesn't do this.
I didn't make that complaint...
Sorry, that comment was aimed at Dale. I know you
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
The bad thing is, since python is not a system package, it
doesn't even save the last compiled binary
in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsyspkg in
make.conf. It does portage but not python.
That's because python is no longer
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
The bad thing is, since python is not a system package, it
doesn't even save the last compiled binary
in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsyspkg in
make.conf. It does portage but not python.
That's
On Thursday 04 February 2010 12:14:52 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:06:54 -0600, Dale wrote:
The bad thing is, since python is not a system package, it
doesn't even save the last compiled binary
in /usr/portage/packages/All/ if you only have buildsyspkg in
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:05:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about a portage feature request?
The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in
@system.
Without the setting, python does not get included
On Thursday 04 February 2010 15:37:17 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:05:55 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about a portage feature request?
The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.
Aren't all deps of packages in @system themselves already in
On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about a portage feature request?
The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf file
which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @system.
Without the setting, python does not get included in @system.
Since
On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.
Aren't all deps of
Mike Edenfield wrote:
On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.
On Thursday 04 February 2010 17:54:06 Mike Edenfield wrote:
On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
How about a portage feature request?
The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @system.
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
what happens. Yes, you can still
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 20:53:39 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Whereas willy-nilly mixing stable and unstable is normally condemned as a
bad idea (with good reason), it generally considered OK with portage for
the above reason. Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't
contaminate the
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
what happens.
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:07:33 -0600, Dale wrote:
Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is
not compulsory.
It doesn't here.
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
system, that would be heaven. lol
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:31:31 Neil Bothwick wrote:
It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.
Portage is A package manager, but if
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
@world.
Could be useful if implemented with an off switch
Or leave it off by default, users can
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 21:29:30 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are
trying to remove a package that is a dependency of anything in
@world.
Could be useful if implemented with an off switch
Or leave it off
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been
working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb
drive is no longer automounting.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
Nevertheless, it isn't the latest version. To get that you need an entry in
package.unmask; then
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
Nevertheless, it isn't the latest version. To get that you need an entry in
On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:03:10PM -0500, David Relson wrote:
Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I likely
to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and how deep?
The latest version of sysvinit, 2.87-r3, is the one you should be
running with openrc.
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been
working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:34:42 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 12:47:46 David Relson wrote:
I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
Nevertheless, it
100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
with legions of other unstable $STUFF
So why has it continued to be marked 'unstable' for so long ?
My long-standing policy
On 2/2/2010 3:48 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean.
You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call
masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely.
Do not confuse these terms. They
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote:
100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
with legions of other unstable $STUFF
So why has it continued
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:40:17 Mike Edenfield wrote:
On 2/2/2010 3:48 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean.
You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call
masked is actually called unstable. Masked
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:34:42 Tom Hendrikx wrote:
As for the issue with openrc:
=sys-apps/openrc-0.6.0-r1 depends on =sys-apps/sysvinit-2.87-r3, and
both are in ~arch. Unmask both, emerge them, run etc-update and be fine.
Portage's blocker list has
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote:
100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:
The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
with legions of other unstable $STUFF
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote:
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been working
fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb drive is no
longer automounting.
This evening I ran /etc/init.d/udev status which reported:
* status: stopped.
Running /etc/init.d/udev start reported:
On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
G'day,
I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been working
fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb drive is no
longer automounting.
This evening I ran /etc/init.d/udev status which reported:
36 matches
Mail list logo
