Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:30 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: Neil Bothwick wrote: Most of the reported problems with testing packages seem to be from people running mixed stable/testing systems. Just a hunch, or do you keep numbers? An impression, much more than a hunch,m but no hard numbers to back it up, hence my use of the word seem. If everyone ran stable, how stable would it be with no testing? If everyone ran either full stable or full testing, how are problems that occur when one the testing packages makes it to stable going to be detected? By the ones running stable. :( So, mixed systems are just as needed as ones at full testing, if not more so. A mixed system is not stable. I doubt many people run all stable save for one package, not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. -- Neil Bothwick Happiness is merely the remission of pain. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On 20 December 2005 20:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the good comments as usual Richard. But I can't resist this: I guess this depends on your reasons for going ~x86. If it is to avoid compiling, well, that is a bad reason, I'd rather set my hair on fire than compile kde, and I'm bald : ) Why? Compiles without a hiccup here. Uwe -- Unix is sexy: who | grep -i blonde | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount sleep -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Neil Bothwick wrote: But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. That is a pretty bold statement. A lot of packages are masked just because they are untested on a particular architecture, and sometimes you need that package to run what ever you are running. It is almost like saying: You like Nachos, so you should only eat Mexican food My 2 cents. Side Note: It is early and this sounds like a valid arguement in my head :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:16:21 -0400, Robin wrote: But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. That is a pretty bold statement. A lot of packages are masked just because they are untested on a particular architecture, and sometimes you need that package to run what ever you are running. True, for a few packages. But when you reach the point where you are frequently solving issues by editing package.keywords it is, IMO, time to switch to a more consistent setup. It is almost like saying: You like Nachos, so you should only eat Mexican food If you find yourself eating nachos for breakfast, lunch and dinner; maybe you should - although I hate to think what wold emerge fro your system when eating that much chilli :) -- Neil Bothwick If you like this tagline, call 1-800-TAGS'R'US signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Mmm, perhaps I'll try running a pure ~x86 after all.Finally am getting back up again...Regards,Martin S
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: A mixed system is not stable. I doubt many people run all stable save for one package, not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. actually, my laptop is all stable except for my wireless card drivers...and I've got some 64-bit servers that are all stable, except for say nagios -- Neil Bothwick Happiness is merely the remission of pain. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:11:30 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: If everyone ran either full stable or full testing, how are problems that occur when one the testing packages makes it to stable going to be detected? By the ones running stable. :( So, mixed systems are just as needed as ones at full testing, if not more so. A mixed system is not stable. Huh? You mean to say that a mixed system is likely to have hiccups? Or do you mean that a mixed system requires more work: having to adapt package.keywords every now and then? But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. That is only because of a shortcoming of portage: if for example one has firefox at ~x86, and a new version of firefox depends on a ~x86 version of some other package, portage should be so clever as to grab that version automatically and not require the user to keyword it in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Or at least it should be possible to enable this cleverness by adding something like autokeyword to FEATURES. Benno -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:56:10 +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote: A mixed system is not stable. Huh? You mean to say that a mixed system is likely to have hiccups? I mean it is not stable as in not x86, amd64, ppc etc. If a system has ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86 in make.conf and a whole bunch of entries in package.keywords, it is neither stable not testing (x86 not ~x86) but a bastard hybrid. But when you have a lot of packages in package.keywords, you're best of switching to a full testing system, IMO. That is only because of a shortcoming of portage: if for example one has firefox at ~x86, and a new version of firefox depends on a ~x86 version of some other package, portage should be so clever as to grab that version automatically and not require the user to keyword it in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Or at least it should be possible to enable this cleverness by adding something like autokeyword to FEATURES. It would seem like a good idea to be able to tell portage use the keyword setting for all world and commandline packages, but use ~arch for dependencies where absolutely necessary). I'm sure there's a serious drawback to this, and I'm equally that Ciaran will post a cryptic three word hint to it :) One potential problem is that many dependencies are there for more than one package. Imagine what could happen if the latest version of a package you had put in package.keywords depended on a ~arch version of glibc. -- Neil Bothwick WinErr 002: No Error - Yet signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Martin S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I recently did something similar only never got past thining I might do it I too had gotten my OS pretty unstable by not really understanding how keywording etc worked. I still don't really fully get it but I came back thinking I'd stay with stable. Back to Gentoo. And battling my own errors... I think I'll run the stable branch this time though. What had happened to cause you to need to reinstall? For me it was running: ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 emerge -vuD world Not realizing the repercussions, like that all dependancies would be unmasked too. That eventuall got me into a pretty big mess. When I reinstalled gentoo my plan was to stay with stable like you. However I soon scrapped that too. Kde is about to jump to kde-3.5 being stable I think and when I went to install kde it wanted to install kde-3.4.3 meaning I'd soon be grinding through all of kde again. Posters have argued that compiling kde is really so bad but I still think its really a time waster. Trying to unmask stuff soon turned into a pita although it can be done. I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in /etc/make.conf and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked. I doubt that above would be seen as very good plan by many though. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Am Dienstag, 20. Dezember 2005 15:56 schrieb ext [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in /etc/make.conf and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked. I doubt that above would be seen as very good plan by many though. Why not? I do run ~x86 on several machines now for over a year, with only minor problems. Of course, you'll run into bugs (mostly compilation problems) from time to time, but that doesn't matter so much (at least for me). I usually file a bug (if not already done by someone else), mask that package version and wait until the bug is fixed. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hambornerstraße 55 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40472 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net pgpkO9N013VJI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On 12/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in /etc/make.conf and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked. I doubt that above would be seen as very good plan by many though. I guess this depends on your reasons for going ~x86. If it is to avoid compiling, well, that is a bad reason, because ~x86 packages are updated much more frequently than the stable ebuilds. This is the nature of testing ebuilds...find a bug, fix the bug, release a new -rX. Not every ~x86 ebuild makes it to stable. On the other hand, I run ~x86 as I consider it my duty as a Gentoo user. Testing the builds on my system is my (relatively small) way of contributing something back. It is the same reason that I now at least boot every -rc kernel. Of course, I make frequent backups! On those rare instances where I do find a bug, I report it, hopefully with enough information to get it fixed. Usually it has already been reported by someone else though. But I say if you learn to use /etc/portage/package.mask appropriately, and are willing to do the testing, then do it. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Dirk Heinrichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why not? I do run ~x86 on several machines now for over a year, with only minor problems. Of course, you'll run into bugs (mostly compilation problems) from time to time, but that doesn't matter so much (at least for me). I usually file a bug (if not already done by someone else), mask that package version and wait until the bug is fixed. That is good to know, I had the notion in the back of my mind it would cause serous grief somewhere. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:56:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in /etc/make.conf and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked. I doubt that above would be seen as very good plan by many though. I'd say it is a good plan. Most of the reported problems with testing packages seem to be from people running mixed stable/testing systems. Running all testing avoids some of the problems of a mixed system, lets you try the new software sooner and gives you opportunity to give something back to Gentoo by reporting any bugs you find. If everyone ran stable, how stable would it be with no testing? -- Neil Bothwick Help! I've fallen and I can't get down! - James Brown signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Richard Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thanks for the good comments as usual Richard. But I can't resist this: I guess this depends on your reasons for going ~x86. If it is to avoid compiling, well, that is a bad reason, I'd rather set my hair on fire than compile kde, and I'm bald : ) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Neil Bothwick wrote: Most of the reported problems with testing packages seem to be from people running mixed stable/testing systems. Just a hunch, or do you keep numbers? If everyone ran stable, how stable would it be with no testing? If everyone ran either full stable or full testing, how are problems that occur when one the testing packages makes it to stable going to be detected? By the ones running stable. :( So, mixed systems are just as needed as ones at full testing, if not more so. Benno -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: A confession
Richard Fish wrote: On 12/20/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just started running with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~x86 in /etc/make.conf and decided to let the chips fall where they may. At least I don't have to fiddle around with a mixture of stable and masked. I doubt that above would be seen as very good plan by many though. On the other hand, I run ~x86 as I consider it my duty as a Gentoo user. Testing the builds on my system is my (relatively small) way of contributing something back. It is the same reason that I now at least boot every -rc kernel. Of course, I make frequent backups! On those rare instances where I do find a bug, I report it, hopefully with enough information to get it fixed. Usually it has already been reported by someone else though. But I say if you learn to use /etc/portage/package.mask appropriately, and are willing to do the testing, then do it. -Richard I enjoy testing as well and thats my main reason for keeping a ~x86 system. However, I don't think its wise for people unfamiliar with (or have no interest in) bugs.gentoo, overlays and to a lesser degree writing/fixing ebuilds to go full ~x86. I've been ~x86 for about a week and I've had to a) pull ebuilds/patches from bugs.gentoo (and also filed a couple), b) moved a couple apps in overlay and c) fix old custom ebuilds in overlay for unsupported software (ex. OpenCV, xfce4 svn). Also making extensive use of package.mask since as mentioned before, some ~x86 have radical changes that might bork your system until you downgrade. Chris -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
