Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: > > The only way in which I'm not yet as convinced as you are is with > respect to dependencies. I'm comfortable with the idea that I browse > the bugs to verify that none of the issues affect my install directly - > then to accept an unstable version of a specific package... but I'd > prefer not to have to dig out the package dependencies and explicitly > allow the unstable branch for those packages too (as seems to have been > indicated earlier in this thread.) Is there a simple way to say, for > example, "I'm willing to accept the unstable version of > Subversion-1.2.1, and (naturally) the unstable version of any package on > which Suversion-1.2.1 depends?" It was my wish to side-step explicitly > dealing with package dependencies which prompted me to use > ACCEPT_KEYWORDS with emerge -uD ... > > Steve > > > Roy has created a perl script called unmask.pl which automatically unmasks keyword masked dependencies: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=gentoo-user&m=111472741321054 Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Holly Bostick wrote: The thing is Portage doesn't *remember* ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, beyond the original compile in which it is used. So if you use it, and keep the package, as soon as you do an emerge -u world, Portage will try to downgrade the package to the last stable version, which is the only one that it knows to be allowed (because /etc/make.conf says "xarch", not "~arch", and no exception for this particular package and its dependencies has been made in /etc/portage/package.keywords). OK - now using package.keywords make far more sense to me. I'd always assumed (wrongly I guess) that "emerge -u" would only upgrade and never downgrade... Now I see why I'd need the entry in package.keywords. It's a beautiful system :-) . I'm closer to believing you. :-) The only way in which I'm not yet as convinced as you are is with respect to dependencies. I'm comfortable with the idea that I browse the bugs to verify that none of the issues affect my install directly - then to accept an unstable version of a specific package... but I'd prefer not to have to dig out the package dependencies and explicitly allow the unstable branch for those packages too (as seems to have been indicated earlier in this thread.) Is there a simple way to say, for example, "I'm willing to accept the unstable version of Subversion-1.2.1, and (naturally) the unstable version of any package on which Suversion-1.2.1 depends?" It was my wish to side-step explicitly dealing with package dependencies which prompted me to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS with emerge -uD ... Steve -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: > Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? > What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and > specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? I *think* it is something along the lines of "30 days without a bug", not 100% sure though. >> Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords >> (create this file if it doesn't exist) : >> >> =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 >> =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 >> =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 >> >> > In one way this looks better than my fiddling with USE - however I'm > reluctant to choose specific versions in a durable configuration file. > Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. > Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me > getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an "emerge -uD world" > in another few months? the line: =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 means that you tell portage that you'll accept subversion, version 1.2.1 exactly, with a keyword of '~x86'. You can use '>=' instead of '=', which means any version equal or greater than 1.2.1. the two following lines were the two dependencies i found by trying 'emerge -uD subversion'. once 1.3 or any version higher than 1.2.1 becomes stable (marked 'x86'), it will be considered by portage as well and will be merged. Hope that helps, Marco -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] schreef: > when I use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in place of USE it now behaves just how I had > previously expected it should have done. > > # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -uD subversion > > This does what I'd originally intended to try... (and doesn't force me > to remember how to spell the dependencies.) I assume there's no > significant advantage I've missed in preferring to use the > package.keywords file instead? Advantage in using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS over /etc/portage/package.keywords? Only in the case that you want to quickly test an unstable package, but are not sure if you want to keep it. The thing is Portage doesn't *remember* ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, beyond the original compile in which it is used. So if you use it, and keep the package, as soon as you do an emerge -u world, Portage will try to downgrade the package to the last stable version, which is the only one that it knows to be allowed (because /etc/make.conf says "xarch", not "~arch", and no exception for this particular package and its dependencies has been made in /etc/portage/package.keywords). This becomes especially frustrating if you do an emerge -uD world, and it's not the main package, but one of the *dependencies* or deep dependencies which forces a downgrade-- if the formerly unstable package has been upgraded to stable, but depends on a package that has not yet been upgraded, emerge -U(D) world can quickly become a hellish cycle of the main package downgrading and then upgrading in the same or sequential operations until you add the relevant packages to /etc/portage/package.keywords and stop the madness. However, if you find that the package is in fact too unstable for your needs, the fact that it will be automatically downgraded at your next emerge -u world is a nice safety net-- but you only need a safety net if you're explicitly testing something and really don't know if it's going to work out for you or not. If you know you want it, then add it to package.keywords. If you're not sure, but don't have the time or energy to explicitly test and make a final determination, then wait until it's stable. It's a beautiful system :-) . Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Petteri Räty wrote: What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? At least a month and there can't be any major bugs reported to bugs.gentoo.org. About specifics on Subversion you need to ask its maintainer. It will stay masked as long as needed for the maintainer to become sure that the package really is stable. Hmmm... I suppose that suggests there were some major bugs... using bugs.gentoo.org is new to me - it seems that's where I was missing a pointer. Thanks again. I didn't want to pester the maintainer with superfluous questions as to why packages are masked. It seems a pity that all the information isn't available on one page... using packages.gentoo.org and bugs.gentoo.org together gives the right info - even if it requires a little bit more effort. :-) I'll be sure to see if I can offer feedback to the bugzilla database if I find something relevant to add. Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an "emerge -uD world" in another few months? No it would not. You are just changing the accepted the keywords for Subversion. Portage always chooses the latest version with accepted keywords. If just add dev-util/subversion you say that you will accept every version marked as ~x86 or you can use =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 to only mark one version. If you don't use version numbers, you will always update to the latest version. If you lock down the version number, the next time you will update if after there is a version greater then 1.2.1, which is marked stable (x86). Ah, ha. That sounds sensible - now I follow. My USE confusion is probably that I'd referred to some wrong/out-of-date documentation... when I use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in place of USE it now behaves just how I had previously expected it should have done. # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -uD subversion This does what I'd originally intended to try... (and doesn't force me to remember how to spell the dependencies.) I assume there's no significant advantage I've missed in preferring to use the package.keywords file instead? Hopefully I answered this. I think you did... Thanks! -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve [Gentoo] wrote: > Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? > What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and > specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? At least a month and there can't be any major bugs reported to bugs.gentoo.org. About specifics on Subversion you need to ask its maintainer. It will stay masked as long as needed for the maintainer to become sure that the package really is stable. > Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. > Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me > getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an "emerge -uD world" > in another few months? No it would not. You are just changing the accepted the keywords for Subversion. Portage always chooses the latest version with accepted keywords. If just add dev-util/subversion you say that you will accept every version marked as ~x86 or you can use =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 to only mark one version. If you don't use version numbers, you will always update to the latest version. If you lock down the version number, the next time you will update if after there is a version greater then 1.2.1, which is marked stable (x86). > I'm only impatient in so far as I'd prefer to use my gentoo server > rather than some other platform. I'm already using Subversion 1.2 on > other platforms and I've found no problems for my configuration so > (other than possible gentoo specific issues) I'm happy to run the latest > Subversion. > [Disclaimer - please don't blame me if your requirements are more > demanding than mine!. :-) ] Gentoo is all about choice. > > Thanks for the reply - it at least convinces me that it is possible to > get Subersion-1.2 installed... However, your solution raises more > questions from me about Gentoo. I'm now unsure if I want to wait-out > the default unstable time for packages (to minimise risk and to simplify > systems management) - or if there is a more subtle way to declare that > I'd like version 1.2.1 now and to have that upgraded when a future > version newer than that which becomes unmasked. Am I missing some other > obvious things? I found the Gentoo handbook a little opaque on the > topic of masked packages... lots of info - just not the answers to the > questions I was thinking. > > Hopefully I answered this. Regards, Petteri Räty ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC1rBTcxLzpIGCsLQRAnfOAKCSwFJDenGWoGRiZWmvS/K67WGP9wCfZrjz tTtBWzlJKXu5kwfNJUfgwQo= =cdsY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Marco Matthies wrote: Gentoo leaves packages in unstable for a default period of time to make sure they work allright. If you want the newest version of a package, you must tell portage to do so by putting the appropriate stuff (subversion and it's dependencies) in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Hmmm - that all sounds sane, but what is this default period of time? What criteria must be met in order for a masked package (and specifically for Subversion) to become unmasked? Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords (create this file if it doesn't exist) : =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 In one way this looks better than my fiddling with USE - however I'm reluctant to choose specific versions in a durable configuration file. Ideally I'd like to follow the natural upgrade cycle in future. Wouldn't putting those lines in my package.keywords file prevent me getting, say, version 1.3 automatically when I do an "emerge -uD world" in another few months? This was just info about portage, it is in no way any form of endorsement on the new version of subversion, as I haven't used it at all - and I don't know if you should be so impatient with a new version of a package that seems to be important to you and your data... I'm only impatient in so far as I'd prefer to use my gentoo server rather than some other platform. I'm already using Subversion 1.2 on other platforms and I've found no problems for my configuration so (other than possible gentoo specific issues) I'm happy to run the latest Subversion. [Disclaimer - please don't blame me if your requirements are more demanding than mine!. :-) ] Thanks for the reply - it at least convinces me that it is possible to get Subersion-1.2 installed... However, your solution raises more questions from me about Gentoo. I'm now unsure if I want to wait-out the default unstable time for packages (to minimise risk and to simplify systems management) - or if there is a more subtle way to declare that I'd like version 1.2.1 now and to have that upgraded when a future version newer than that which becomes unmasked. Am I missing some other obvious things? I found the Gentoo handbook a little opaque on the topic of masked packages... lots of info - just not the answers to the questions I was thinking. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: > I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been > eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new "reserved > checkout" - but nothing seems to have moved forward. you must have missed this link from the gentoo homepage (on the left): http://packages.gentoo.org/ a search yields this: http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=subversion also, for a command-line version, read: man equery You might also want to read up on the portage section in the gentoo handbook: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3 sorry for such a canned answer, but i would only repeat what's been written there. > I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't > install reporting a "Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies"... > I'm reluctant to use an unstable subverison port as it would cost me a > fair bit of time if it scrambles my version controlled files. Does > anyone know what the problems are and why its taking so long to get > 1.2.x into the default portage tree? Don't put ~x86 in your USE flags just for that - use /etc/portage/package.keywords (see the above mentioned portage guide). I'm not exactly sure what you want - Gentoo leaves packages in unstable for a default period of time to make sure they work allright. If you want the newest version of a package, you must tell portage to do so by putting the appropriate stuff (subversion and it's dependencies) in /etc/portage/package.keywords. Here, i just did it myself by putting this in my package.keywords (create this file if it doesn't exist) : =dev-util/subversion-1.2.1 ~x86 =dev-libs/apr-util-0.9.5~x86 =dev-libs/apr-0.9.5 ~x86 You just add one package, ask portage to merge, then put in the next dependency, and so on... Tried this on amd64 (with ~amd64 instead of ~x86, naturally), it's happily compiling away... This was just info about portage, it is in no way any form of endorsement on the new version of subversion, as I haven't used it at all - and I don't know if you should be so impatient with a new version of a package that seems to be important to you and your data... Hope this helps, Marco -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
Steve [Gentoo] wrote: > I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been > eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new "reserved > checkout" - but nothing seems to have moved forward. > > Portage (by default) still gives me version 1.1.3... but version 1.2 > has been available for a couple of months and 1.2.1 a fortnight... I > wouldn't have considered this a difficult package to port to Gentoo - > especially as just about every other platform is supported directly by > the Subversion developers... > > I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't > install reporting a "Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies"... Huh? I've been using 1.2 for awhile and emerge 1.2.1 as of yesterday. Did you add: dev-util/subversion ~x86 to your /etc/portage/package.keywords. You can just emerge subversion and keep everything else on the stable build. If you still block, send the output from: emerge -pv subversion --Kurt -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Subversion 1.2
I'd have thought lots of people in the gentoo crowd would have been eagerly awaiting subversion 1.2.x with its substantial new "reserved checkout" - but nothing seems to have moved forward. Portage (by default) still gives me version 1.1.3... but version 1.2 has been available for a couple of months and 1.2.1 a fortnight... I wouldn't have considered this a difficult package to port to Gentoo - especially as just about every other platform is supported directly by the Subversion developers... I've tried using ~x86 as my USE flag - but the 1.2 ebuild still won't install reporting a "Problem in dev-util/subversion-1.2 dependencies"... I'm reluctant to use an unstable subverison port as it would cost me a fair bit of time if it scrambles my version controlled files. Does anyone know what the problems are and why its taking so long to get 1.2.x into the default portage tree? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
