Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 16:42:20 - (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> IMO it's a mistake to have one package called "svn" and another one
> called "subversion".
The names -f the acct-{user,group} packages follow the actual user names.
So the issue is caused by subversion running as the svn user, portage is
just following upstream.
That does make it any less prone to confusion, but I doubt you will
persuade the subversion devs to change their choice of user name :-O
--
Neil Bothwick
The Japanese call us lazy, but at least we cook our fish!
pgpIEH3vlLtoD.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On 2023-09-06, Alan McKinnon wrote: > Not really. ebuilds tend to be named the same as the project, so > apache is called apache (project name), not httpd (binary name) > > The user package is named after what the system user will be, and > SVN has run as "svn" since forever. Makes total sense, as long as > you know exactly what how the software works and how it's deployed. Exactly. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On Wed, 2023-09-06 at 19:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > OSes are like biology: apparently logical but actually messy And both developed organically!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 6:43 PM Grant Edwards wrote: > > IMO it's a mistake to have one package called "svn" and another one > called "subversion". > Not really. ebuilds tend to be named the same as the project, so apache is called apache (project name), not httpd (binary name) The user package is named after what the system user will be, and SVN has run as "svn" since forever. Makes total sense, as long as you know exactly what how the software works and how it's deployed. Except when it kicks you in the teeth, like what happened here. OSes are like biology: apparently logical but actually messy -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On 9/6/23 12:42, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2023-09-06, Michael wrote: The message indicates subversion needs reinstalling with the downgraded sqlite - potentially @preserved-rebuild ought to catch this, or revdep-rebuild. I used to run revdep-rebuild after every update, but a few years ago I thought I read that was no longer a useful thing to do. I did not try @preserved-rebuild since there was no message from portage indicating it was needed. Isn't there usually a message from portage if that set is non-empty? I don't think it would have done anything, since the library file's version didn't change and subversion was indeed using the newer library. @preserved-rebuild only kicks in if the library file version changes and portage keeps the old version of the file around to keep some apps running until they are re-built to use the newer version of the library file. You could have a go rebuilding sqlite with +static-libs, but I'm clutching at straws here. :-/ Emerging 'subversion' did it. When I typed 'emerge svn' and something got merged without any errors I didn't even look to see exactly what -- though after I emerged subversion I did remember that emerging svn didn't take nearly as long as it should have. IMO it's a mistake to have one package called "svn" and another one called "subversion". -- Grant I'd also consider it a possible bug that subversion didn't require a rebuild after a version change of one of it's dependencies. I don't remember why the downgrade was needed (I got hit by that also) but perhaps it was added to the tree as stable and then reverted to testing, but not soon enough? Jack
[gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On 2023-09-06, Michael wrote: > The message indicates subversion needs reinstalling with the downgraded > sqlite > - potentially @preserved-rebuild ought to catch this, or revdep-rebuild. I used to run revdep-rebuild after every update, but a few years ago I thought I read that was no longer a useful thing to do. I did not try @preserved-rebuild since there was no message from portage indicating it was needed. Isn't there usually a message from portage if that set is non-empty? I don't think it would have done anything, since the library file's version didn't change and subversion was indeed using the newer library. @preserved-rebuild only kicks in if the library file version changes and portage keeps the old version of the file around to keep some apps running until they are re-built to use the newer version of the library file. > You could have a go rebuilding sqlite with +static-libs, but I'm clutching at > straws here. :-/ Emerging 'subversion' did it. When I typed 'emerge svn' and something got merged without any errors I didn't even look to see exactly what -- though after I emerged subversion I did remember that emerging svn didn't take nearly as long as it should have. IMO it's a mistake to have one package called "svn" and another one called "subversion". -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 17:21:14 BST Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2023-09-06, Grant Edwards wrote: > > sudo emerge --sync > > sudo emerage -auvND world > > > > [...] > > > > $ svn status > > svn: E200029: Couldn't perform atomic initialization > > svn: E200030: SQLite compiled for 3.43.0, but running with 3.42.0 > > > > [...] > > Manually re-merging svn didn't fix it. > > Doh! Emerging "svn" is basically a nop: all it deals with is account > stuff. Emerging "subversion" fixed it. > > Is there a portage mechanism that should have done that? > > Why is the account stuff "svn" and the package itself "subversion"? > > -- > Grant Our messages crossed. Did you run @preserved-rebuild by any chance? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: sqlite downgraded by update breaks things
On 2023-09-06, Grant Edwards wrote: > sudo emerge --sync > sudo emerage -auvND world > [...] > > $ svn status > svn: E200029: Couldn't perform atomic initialization > svn: E200030: SQLite compiled for 3.43.0, but running with 3.42.0 > > [...] > Manually re-merging svn didn't fix it. Doh! Emerging "svn" is basically a nop: all it deals with is account stuff. Emerging "subversion" fixed it. Is there a portage mechanism that should have done that? Why is the account stuff "svn" and the package itself "subversion"? -- Grant
