Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

Dale wrote: > Bryan Gardiner wrote: >> On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:51:37 -0500 >> Matt Connell wrote: >> >>> First time I've seen this happen! >>> >>> Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the >>> following preserved libs: >>> >>> --- >>> >>> !!! existing preserved libs:

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

Bryan Gardiner wrote: > On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:51:37 -0500 > Matt Connell wrote: > >> First time I've seen this happen! >> >> Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the >> following preserved libs: >> >> --- >> >> !!! existing preserved libs:

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:51:37 -0500 Matt Connell wrote: > First time I've seen this happen! > > Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the > following preserved libs: > > --- > > !!! existing preserved libs: > >>> package:

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 at 04:07, Jack wrote: > > May or may not help, but have you tried revdep-rebuild? Also, you can try just one-shotting the reported packages, such as (for the last one in your list): emerge -1 sys-libs/zlib Regards, Arve

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

May or may not help, but have you tried revdep-rebuild? On 11/23/23 16:51, Matt Connell wrote: First time I've seen this happen! Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the following preserved libs: --- !!! existing preserved libs: package: app-arch/bzip2-1.0.8-r4 *

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

Sorry for the double post; I got a mail-undeliverable from Google so I thought it didn't go through and retried it. Turns out it got to the mailing list (both times) but not to gmail recipients because Google doesn't like my SPF record (record says hard-fail on no match and someone somewhere is

[gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

First time I've seen this happen! Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the following preserved libs: --- !!! existing preserved libs: >>> package: app-arch/bzip2-1.0.8-r4 * - /usr/lib/libbz2.so.1

[gentoo-user] Portage reports preserved libs, but won't rebuild

First time I've seen this happen! Any time I emerge anything, I get portage telling me I have the following preserved libs: --- !!! existing preserved libs: >>> package: app-arch/bzip2-1.0.8-r4 * -

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 5/12/23 20:08, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Saturday, 13 May 2023 00:53:49 BST Mark Knecht wrote: Anyway, I had a couple of thoughts: 1) If it's really a bug then as others have said report it up the chain and hope for a fix. https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933 2) If I wanted to solve the

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Saturday, 13 May 2023 00:53:49 BST Mark Knecht wrote: >Anyway, I had a couple of thoughts: > > 1) If it's really a bug then as others have said report it up the > chain and hope for a fix. https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933 > 2) If I wanted to solve the problem today(ish) then I'd build > a

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 10:42 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Friday, 12 May 2023 17:58:46 BST Jack wrote: > > > Again, --load-average tells emerge whether it can start a new > > job/package, but has no control over how high the load will get based > > on the already started jobs. If emerge

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:59 AM Jack wrote: > > On 2023.05.12 12:23, Mark Knecht wrote: > [snip .] > >One interesting point is that the first Gentoo page I found to > > look at the emerge man page shows LOAD as the value provided > > to the --load-average option, but nowhere does it

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 17:58:46 BST Jack wrote: > Again, --load-average tells emerge whether it can start a new > job/package, but has no control over how high the load will get based > on the already started jobs. If emerge starts new jobs when the load > is over that specified by

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 2023.05.12 12:23, Mark Knecht wrote: [snip .] One interesting point is that the first Gentoo page I found to look at the emerge man page shows LOAD as the value provided to the --load-average option, but nowhere does it specify anything other than it's a floating point value: I suspect

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:08 AM Jack wrote: > > > -j 1 > > -j1 --load-average=40 > > -j1 --load-aveeage=40.0 > > -j1 --load-average=4.0 > > -j1 --load-average=0.4 > > -j10 --load-average=0.4 > > > > etc., and see what happens? > --load-average controls whether or not emerge starts another >

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 2023.05.12 11:27, Mark Knecht wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:27 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > > My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are misunderstanding > > the documentation. > > That's what bothers me the most -

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:27 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > > My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are misunderstanding > > the documentation. > > That's what bothers me the most - that I have a mental block somewhere. :( > > --

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:13:08 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > My opinion: load-average probably works, but we are misunderstanding > the documentation. That's what bothers me the most - that I have a mental block somewhere. :( -- Regards, Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 15:06:21 BST Michael Cook wrote: > You can read /usr/share/portage/config/make.conf.example for an > explanation. All children processes will use that. I can run portage and > play games on the same system with my settings. That example says nothing about any of the emerge

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 6:46 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey > > > > wrote: > > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > > > > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 14:37:13 BST Jack wrote: > I still see two separate issues. First, you are saying that emerge > still launches new jobs when the load is over what is set with > --load-average. A possible way to test this directly is to run or > create some job that pushed the load

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 5/12/23 09:46, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the machine if

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 00:08:03 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey > > wrote: > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > > > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the > > > machine if not sensibly set.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 5/12/23 09:16, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Friday, 12 May 2023 11:09:37 BST Arve Barsnes wrote: On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey wrote: I have said several times that portage is ignoring that setting. I have it at 40, yet portage kicks off more packages at 72, and continues

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 11:09:37 BST Arve Barsnes wrote: > On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > I have said several times that portage is ignoring that setting. I have it > > at 40, yet portage kicks off more packages at 72, and continues doing so > > for extended periods - at

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Fri, 12 May 2023 at 10:34, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Friday, 12 May 2023 01:38:52 BST Jack wrote: > > The --load-average to emerge itself just tells it not to start a new job > > if the load is above the setting. If there are several large jobs, but > > all start with single threaded

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 09:34:27 BST I wrote: > > The --load-average in MAKEOPTS gets passed to make, and controls how > > many processes make starts. If that is set, and the load is still too > > high, the problem is in make not in emerge. Also, that setting will > > have no effect if the

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Friday, 12 May 2023 01:38:52 BST Jack wrote: > Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but as I see it, there are two different > --load-average settings to consider. I'd have to go back to the > beginning of the thread to confirm you are setting both of them. I am also going to repeat myself. > The

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 5/11/23 23:23, Eldon wrote: On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 11:07:04PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: Once again, --load-average is being ignored. Why is it there? Surely, it must be to mitigate the worst effects of that N*K, but it isn't doing so. Take all of the following with a grain of salt and

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 5/11/23 18:07, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: I'm sure you get this but I'm pointing toward the EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS portage variable which, according to it's page that "defines entries to be appended to the emerge command line." I suspect they

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 3:07 PM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > The ''problem' is this can easily hit 100% of the cores you have in the > > machine if not sensibly set. (You choose what's 'sensible') > > Once again, --load-average is being

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 17:18:17 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > I'm sure you get this but I'm pointing toward the EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS > portage variable which, according to it's page that "defines entries to be > appended to the emerge command line." I suspect they are appended, but > that doesn't

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 9:03 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Thursday, 11 May 2023 15:58:20 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > > Going further, this page states: > > > > "The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and for > > an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100%

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 15:58:20 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > Going further, this page states: > > "The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and for > an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100% load. Another rule > of thumb here is to set X.Y=N*0.9 which will

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 14:45:26 BST Mark Knecht wrote: > OK, this is a bit of a weird thing for me to ask you to try but this page > on emerge: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS > > says pretty clearly that "--load-average X.Y" should be a floating point > number so try it

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

Going further, this page states: "The load average value is the same as displayed by top or uptime, and for an N-core system, a load average of N.0 would be a 100% load. Another rule of thumb here is to set X.Y=N*0.9 which will limit the load to 90%, thus maintaining system responsiveness." So,

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 6:34 AM Peter Humphrey wrote: > > On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the portage > > devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome. > > So far, I've just been asked whether I

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the portage > devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome. So far, I've just been asked whether I expected something different, to which I replied "Why is

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Monday, 8 May 2023 11:20:45 BST Neil Bothwick wrote: > Maybe you should take this to bgo where it can be flagged for the portage > devs to look at, just keep us posted on the outcome. https://bugs.gentoo.org/905933 -- Regards, Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Sun, 07 May 2023 17:00:16 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: > Everybody keeps explaining how the system is supposed to work. I know > all that, as I said last time. > > The problem is that PORTAGE IS NOT DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO. I see the same at times. I realise that portage can only look at

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 12:50:08PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote > Second, the two pages contribute actively to the confusion between the emerge > jobs submitted in parallel by portage and the concurrent tasks that may be > launched by each of those. > > The test: > > I ran 'emerge -e @world'

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 15:52:08 BST Michael wrote: > As I understand it and have so far confirmed on my systems, the --jobs > directive explained on the emerge man page, places a limit of how many > different non-dependent packages will be emerged in parallel at any time, by > any single emerge

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 11:27:14 BST Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Saturday, 6 May 2023 19:18:25 BST Jack wrote: > > I hope I'm not preaching to the choir, and I have NOT reread the > > various man pages, but the different options you mention (and some you > > don't) apply to different parts of the

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On Saturday, 6 May 2023 19:18:25 BST Jack wrote: > Minor point - are you sure ccache isn't affecting your results? Pretty sure - it isn't installed here. :) > I hope I'm not preaching to the choir, and I have NOT reread the > various man pages, but the different options you mention (and some

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage load control

On 2023.05.06 07:50, Peter Humphrey wrote: Hello list, I still don't know how this works. I ran a test over the last two days, and the result does not accord with 'man make.conf' nor 'man 1 make'. First, 'man make.conf' does not state that --load-average, if set, will override --jobs,

[gentoo-user] Portage load control

Hello list, I still don't know how this works. I ran a test over the last two days, and the result does not accord with 'man make.conf' nor 'man 1 make'. First, 'man make.conf' does not state that --load-average, if set, will override --jobs, as it clearly does. Second, the two pages

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 'Completed (m of n)' messages

On 11/04/2023 15:24, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:08 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: What does the panel think of these new status messages from portage (~amd64)? At first I thought "that's useful", but after a while I concluded that it just adds to the clutter on the screen and

Re[2]: [gentoo-user] Portage 'Completed (m of n)' messages

Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:08 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> What does the panel think of these new status messages from portage >> (~amd64)? At first I thought "that's useful", but after a while I >> concluded that it just adds to the clutter on the screen and actually

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 'Completed (m of n)' messages

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 11:59:08 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: > What does the panel think of these new status messages from portage > (~amd64)? At first I thought "that's useful", but after a while I > concluded that it just adds to the clutter on the screen and actually > impedes my ability to

[gentoo-user] Portage 'Completed (m of n)' messages

Hello list, What does the panel think of these new status messages from portage (~amd64)? At first I thought "that's useful", but after a while I concluded that it just adds to the clutter on the screen and actually impedes my ability to follow progress. Perhaps I'm just being a Grumpy Old

Re: [gentoo-user] portage ignores -drafts flag set in /etc/portage/package.use

чт, 6 апр. 2023 г. в 13:24, Arve Barsnes : > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 12:12, gevisz wrote: > > portage reported the following: > > > > The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: > > (see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details) > > # required by

Re: [gentoo-user] portage ignores -drafts flag set in /etc/portage/package.use

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 12:12, gevisz wrote: > portage reported the following: > > The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: > (see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details) > # required by dev-python/pyzmq-25.0.2::gentoo[-test] > # required by

[gentoo-user] portage ignores -drafts flag set in /etc/portage/package.use

After running the following command to update my Gentoo: # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --backtrack=120 --verbose-conflicts --ask world portage reported the following: The following USE changes are necessary to proceed: (see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details) #

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage wrongly blocking an update

Thanks Dave On Sun, Jan 15, 2023, 04:53 Peter Humphrey wrote: > Hello list, > > Today's update of my LAN server failed to resolve a block. It said it > couldn't > emerge net-proxy/squid-5.7 because of: > > [blocks B ] net-proxy/squid-5.7) > [,,,] > (net-proxy/squid-5.7:0/0::gentoo,

[gentoo-user] Portage wrongly blocking an update

Hello list, Today's update of my LAN server failed to resolve a block. It said it couldn't emerge net-proxy/squid-5.7 because of: [blocks B ]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage - ERROR: setup

On 3/8/22 20:48, Matt Connell wrote: On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 16:12 -0700, the...@sys-concept.com wrote: In /usr/src/linux is pointing correctly:    linux -> linux-5.10.61-gentoo 5.10.61 isn't offered by gentoo-sources anymore. I think you probably depcleaned it at some point since then, so

Re: [gentoo-user] portage - ERROR: setup

On Tue, 2022-03-08 at 16:12 -0700, the...@sys-concept.com wrote: > In /usr/src/linux is pointing correctly: > >    linux -> linux-5.10.61-gentoo 5.10.61 isn't offered by gentoo-sources anymore. I think you probably depcleaned it at some point since then, so there are no more sources there.

[gentoo-user] portage - ERROR: setup

Upgrading to new portage I get an error message: package sys-apps/portage-3.0.30-r1 merged on ... with notice ERROR: setup Could not find a Makefile in the kernel source directory. Please ensure that /usr/src/linux points to a complete set of Linux sources WARN: setup Unable to calculate Linux

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage detects fake "world file problems" and packages that don't exist

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 10:00:52 GMT Neil Bothwick wrote: > Top Oxymorons Number 19: Passive aggression > Top Oxymorons Number 20: Emotional intelligence. -- Regards, Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage detects fake "world file problems" and packages that don't exist

On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 22:44:08 +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > This is weird. When doing: > > emerge -auDU @world > > Portage says: > > > !!! Problems have been detected with your world file > !!! Please run emaint --check world > > > !!! Ebuilds for the following packages are

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage detects fake "world file problems" and packages that don't exist

If nothing else, I would start by adding a --verbose to that emerge command. It may just confuse you worse, but it might add some useful info. On 2022.01.08 15:44, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: This is weird. When doing: emerge -auDU @world Portage says: !!! Problems have been

[gentoo-user] Portage detects fake "world file problems" and packages that don't exist

This is weird. When doing: emerge -auDU @world Portage says: !!! Problems have been detected with your world file !!! Please run emaint --check world !!! Ebuilds for the following packages are either all !!! masked or don't exist: media-sound/pavucontrol media-sound/pulseeffects

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 9/6/21 6:26 PM, n952162 wrote: On 9/6/21 3:48 PM, n952162 wrote: On 4/3/21 10:03 PM, n952162 wrote: I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 9/6/21 3:48 PM, n952162 wrote: On 4/3/21 10:03 PM, n952162 wrote: I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately, saying 0 packages are

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 4/3/21 10:03 PM, n952162 wrote: I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately, saying 0 packages are selected. I found one problem: on

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 4/4/21 6:41 AM, n952162 wrote: On 4/4/21 12:37 PM, n952162 wrote: After re-running quickpkg, I still get no "binary"s in the emerge output dependency tree. At some point, I started getting 304 errors here again. |304 Not Modified|

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 4/4/21 12:37 PM, n952162 wrote: After re-running quickpkg, I still get no "binary"s in the emerge output dependency tree. At some point, I started getting 304 errors here again. |304 Not Modified| This is used for

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 4/4/21 10:56 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 10:33:15 +0200, n952162 wrote: [ebuild   R    ]    dev-libs/libuv-1.40.0:0/1::gentoo USE="-static-libs" 0 KiB I'm not sure where the static-libs USE flag comes from, it's not in /etc/portage/package.use. The flag is defined in the

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 10:33:15 +0200, n952162 wrote: > [ebuild   R    ]    dev-libs/libuv-1.40.0:0/1::gentoo USE="-static-libs" > 0 KiB > > I'm not sure where the static-libs USE flag comes from, it's not in > /etc/portage/package.use. The flag is defined in the ebuild and defaults to off. > I

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On 4/4/21 12:31 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 22:03:46 +0200, n952162 wrote: I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately,

Re: [gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 22:03:46 +0200, n952162 wrote: > I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked > up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional > information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately, saying 0 > packages are selected. > >

[gentoo-user] portage has 0 debugging support for binary emerges

I find no clue why the binary packages on my server aren't being picked up.  The --debug option  (and --verbose, naturally) has no additional information.  Running the --getbinpkgonly stops immediately, saying 0 packages are selected. I found one problem: on my server, my apache log file had a

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage: emerge(1) ebuild(1) ebuild.sh

On 2021-01-07 10:26+ Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:07:36 +0800, Kevin Shell wrote: > > > > emerge is the high level command normally used by users to manage > > > packages. ebuild is only used for installing and removing > > > packages, emerge does a lot more besides, and is

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage: emerge(1) ebuild(1) ebuild.sh

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:07:36 +0800, Kevin Shell wrote: > > emerge is the high level command normally used by users to manage > > packages. ebuild is only used for installing and removing packages, > > emerge does a lot more besides, and is a more low level command. > > ebuild.sh is for use by

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage: emerge(1) ebuild(1) ebuild.sh

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 08:51:40AM +, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:43:00 +0800, Kevin Shell wrote: > > > What's the relationship between > > ebuild(1) & emerge(1), ebuild(1) & ebuild.sh? > > emerge is the high level command normally used by users to manage > packages. ebuild is

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage: emerge(1) ebuild(1) ebuild.sh

On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 16:43:00 +0800, Kevin Shell wrote: > What's the relationship between > ebuild(1) & emerge(1), ebuild(1) & ebuild.sh? emerge is the high level command normally used by users to manage packages. ebuild is only used for installing and removing packages, emerge does a lot more

[gentoo-user] Portage: emerge(1) ebuild(1) ebuild.sh

Hello gentoo list. What's the relationship between ebuild(1) & emerge(1), ebuild(1) & ebuild.sh? Why the ebuild(1)(python script) command exists, is it for debugging ebuild scripts? -- kevin

Re: [gentoo-user] portage blocking portage update

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 10:38:43AM +0100, Arve Barsnes wrote > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:07, Walter Dnes wrote: > > I just did an "emerge --sync", and was told to update portage. But it > > seems that portage 3.0.8 built with python 3.7 is blocking portage 3.0.9 > > with python 3.8. I

Re: [gentoo-user] portage blocking portage update

On Tuesday, 8 December 2020 09:38:43 GMT Arve Barsnes wrote: > On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:07, Walter Dnes wrote: > > I just did an "emerge --sync", and was told to update portage. But it > > > > seems that portage 3.0.8 built with python 3.7 is blocking portage 3.0.9 > > with python 3.8. I

Re: [gentoo-user] portage blocking portage update

On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 10:07, Walter Dnes wrote: > I just did an "emerge --sync", and was told to update portage. But it > seems that portage 3.0.8 built with python 3.7 is blocking portage 3.0.9 > with python 3.8. I obviously can't remove portage to fix the block . > Note "grep -i python

[gentoo-user] portage blocking portage update

I just did an "emerge --sync", and was told to update portage. But it seems that portage 3.0.8 built with python 3.7 is blocking portage 3.0.9 with python 3.8. I obviously can't remove portage to fix the block . Note "grep -i python /etc/portage/make.conf" shows no output at all. In

[gentoo-user] portage configuration saves the day!

I did some portage configuration and the kernel configuration items that are missing got saved in that log file! -- United States has 633 Billionaires with only 10 doing any annual significant giving.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

On 11/11/20 10:10 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:31:07 -0800, Daniel Frey wrote: Or is this because nvidia-drivers depends on virtual/linux-sources? Even so, the presence of the single slotted version in world should be enough to satisfy the dependency. Exactly, and emerge

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 08:31:07 -0800, Daniel Frey wrote: > Or is this because nvidia-drivers depends on virtual/linux-sources? > Even so, the presence of the single slotted version in world should be > enough to satisfy the dependency. Exactly, and emerge -u will try to update that and its

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

On 11/11/20 7:56 AM, Arve Barsnes wrote: On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 16:44, Daniel Frey wrote: Does anyone have any idea where to look next to see why this is being pulled in? You should probably just refer to your previous thread, because all the same info still applies. You need to mask

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 16:56:38 +0100, Arve Barsnes wrote: > > Does anyone have any idea where to look next to see why this is being > > pulled in? > > You should probably just refer to your previous thread, because all > the same info still applies. You need to mask gentoo-sources and > unmask

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2020 at 16:44, Daniel Frey wrote: > Does anyone have any idea where to look next to see why this is being > pulled in? You should probably just refer to your previous thread, because all the same info still applies. You need to mask gentoo-sources and unmask the versions you want

[gentoo-user] Portage and kernel sources... part deux.

So now I have another machine that insists on pulling in another set of kernel sources, even though I like to do this manually. apollo ~ # emerge -auDNt world These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order: Calculating dependencies... done! [nomerge ]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On 10/11/20 10:06 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:23 PM Daniel Frey wrote: The problem is it's always trying to pull in unstable packages when I have two slotted kernels in world: sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:5.4.48 sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:5.4.66 I tried masking kernels

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 19:37:49 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > Ugh, I really need to get my eyes checked. You're right of course... There's no "of course" about it ;-) -- Neil Bothwick An unemployed Court Jester is nobody's fool. pgpx1XFUbTotx.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 6:47 PM Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:58:30 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > I too stick to stable sources, partly for the reason you give, partly > > > to avoid excessive reboots and partly because some systems use ZFS. > > > > > > % cat

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:58:30 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > > I too stick to stable sources, partly for the reason you give, partly > > to avoid excessive reboots and partly because some systems use ZFS. > > > > % cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/kernel > > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 1:57 PM Neil Bothwick wrote: > > I too stick to stable sources, partly for the reason you give, partly to > avoid excessive reboots and partly because some systems use ZFS. > > % cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/kernel > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources -~amd64 >

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 09:23:29 -0700, Daniel Frey wrote: > I have nvidia-drivers installed. It has a dependency to > virtual/linux-sources. > > The problem is it's always trying to pull in unstable packages when I > have two slotted kernels in world: > > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:5.4.48 >

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

Portage is neither silly nor smart. Will do what will be told to do. By default is tracking stable packages unless you have specified otherwise either by changing universally the tracking $ARCH in make.conf or per package in package.accept_keywords file or directory. I would guess that you've got

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:23 PM Daniel Frey wrote: > > The problem is it's always trying to pull in unstable packages when I > have two slotted kernels in world: > > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:5.4.48 > sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:5.4.66 > > I tried masking kernels >5.5 but now it's trying to pull

[gentoo-user] Portage being silly with kernel sources

This is one of those frustrating times where portage is trying to do something silly. I have nvidia-drivers installed. It has a dependency to virtual/linux-sources. The problem is it's always trying to pull in unstable packages when I have two slotted kernels in world:

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage package removals due to python-2.7

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:48 AM Michael wrote: > > On Monday, 24 August 2020 13:02:56 BST Rich Freeman wrote: > I may give virt-manager a spin, because the users will require a GUI manager > to launch VMs, but then if I start emerging packages at large I could emerge > VBox from source instead.

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage package removals due to python-2.7

Thank you all for your responses. On Monday, 24 August 2020 13:02:56 BST Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:57 AM Neil Bothwick wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:50:42 +0100, Michael wrote: > > > I have a number of VBox VM systems, some with active software licenses > > > running

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage package removals due to python-2.7

On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 12:24:26 +0100, Michael wrote: > > > I have a number of VBox VM systems, some with active software > > > licenses running on them and the VBox-bin is a low-maintenance and > > > convenient way to run them. I'd prefer to avoid emerging a non-bin > > > VBox. Is there some way I

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >