Sorry about previous send with no additions. Bad fingers this
afternoon I guess...
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Drake Donahue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 24
> Nov 2008 12:19:04 -0500:
>
>> The wisdom of making currently existing and useful packages depend on
>> some future incomplete package management system (so that updates become
>> arduous and/or impossible)?? Anyone discovered a way to cope with
>> 'masked by eapx '? sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc15 did not relieve a 'masked
>> by eap2' ....
>
> It should be 2.2_rc16, now. rc15 has a circular logic bug on unsolved
> dependencies.
>
<SNIP>
>
> Personally, I default to ~arch, and unmask hard-masked packages either in-
> tree or from various overlays from time to time as well.
Where do you do this? In /etc/make.conf? I've never run a machine like
that but would be interested in at least seeing how many packages this
machine would have to rebuild if I went there.
Also, when you say '~arch' on this list do you really mean ~amd64, or
is there a real ~arch that I've not learned about?
Generally I've always run stable and then never shied away from having
a larger set of file in my package.keywords file to get what I think I
want to run.
> But in general,
> I'm prepared for them to fail once in awhile, and to spend sometimes
> significant time tracing and reporting bugs, then working around them or
> rolling back to an earlier version without the bug, should I need the
> bugged functionality. But YMMV definitely applies in this area, and
> while I'd not be satisfied running what I'd consider long outdated
> versions that may be the latest stable in many cases, other people may
> prefer that stability even if it does mean being maybe a year behind at
> times, possibly even more in some cases.
>
> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
I don't think that running 'stable' anymore really means stable.
package management has (IMO, really) gotten rather arbitrary over the
last 2 years to the extent that I know of multiple people who have
left the distro because stable packages are really broken. It's hard
on some people with certain workload models (say a professional
recording studio) to run stable, do updates, find new software is
broken, and then have to downgrade. Lost time is lost money. I know of
at least 4 that have moved onto other prepacked distros in the last
year. Disappointing.
Anyway, back on topic. I managed to build portage-2.2_rc16 today and
now have the option of building ardour-2.7. Not sure I'm gonna do it
though as I then have 2 files blocking, one having to do with Gnome
itself and I had to unmask a whole boatload of packages to get to the
point that I found that:
media-sound/ardour ~amd64
media-sound/jack-audio-connection-kit ~amd64
media-libs/aubio ~amd64
dev-cpp/gtkmm ~amd64
dev-cpp/glibmm ~amd64
dev-libs/glib ~amd64
dev-cpp/pangomm ~amd64
x11-libs/gtk+ ~amd64
x11-libs/pango ~amd64
x11-libs/cairo ~amd64
x11-libs/pixman ~amd64
lightning ~ # emerge -pvDuN world
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
<SNIP>
[blocks b ] <dev-cpp/gtkmm-2.13:2.4 ("<dev-cpp/gtkmm-2.13:2.4" is
blocking dev-cpp/pangomm-2.14.1)
[blocks B ] <gnome-base/gail-1000 ("<gnome-base/gail-1000" is
blocking x11-libs/gtk+-2.14.4)
Total: 10 packages (9 upgrades, 1 new), Size of downloads: 46,253 kB
Conflict: 2 blocks (1 unsatisfied)
lightning ~ #
Not sure this is worth the effort, at least until the weekend maybe.
Thanks for your help. At least I got past the issue with portage.
Cheers,
Mark
