Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage could not do that. It would be possible by: 1) emerge paludiis 2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact syntax) This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at least 1 package manager installed. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Joost Roeleveld jo...@antarean.org wrote: On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage could not do that. It would be possible by: 1) emerge paludiis 2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact syntax) This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at least 1 package manager installed. -- Joost Having something delete/remove itself is always a tricky situation. But in this context it should be possible. Though package managers are extremely useful, they are not mandatory and in some (rare) cases one may not be wanted and there must be a way to appease these environments in such a situation. We're talking about GNU/Linux here, the possible uses are enormous, so the user just needs to understand what they're doing and know which packages are vital in their system to make sure it continues to operate as expected.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage could not do that. emerge paludis and then use paludis to remove portage? W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
Am 03.08.2011 23:44, schrieb Willie Wong: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) W I don't really see an issue here. There are lots of packages whose removal will wreak havok on your system: wget, gcc, python, binutils etc. Some are part of @system and are therefore protected. For others like portage there are alternatives which means that AFAIK they cannot be part of @system. None of these have any protection except that dependencies will usually prevent their removal by emerge --depclean. For portage itself, Albert already pointed out that it ought to be protected from --depclean. Portage doesn't protect you from shooting yourself in the foot with `emerge -C foo`. It just tries not to it by itself when you ask it kindly with `emerge -c foo`. ;) Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the @system sets.) What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage could not do that. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote: @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` It doesn't try this on my system. Portage is installed, but not in world: ** eve ~ # cat /var/lib/portage/world | grep portage app-portage/eix app-portage/gentoolkit app-portage/layman eve ~ # eix -e portage [I] sys-apps/portage Installed versions: 2.1.10.3(08:42:46 PM 07/30/2011)(ipc less -build - doc -epydoc -linguas_pl -python2 -python3 -selinux) Homepage:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/index.xml Description: Portage is the package management and distribution system for Gentoo ** (I removed a few lines from the eix-output to make it better readable) And emerge -pv --depclean ends with: ** No packages selected for removal by depclean Packages installed: 1090 Packages in world:124 Packages in system: 45 Required packages:1090 Number to remove: 0 ** Am I missing something here? -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Monday, August 1 at 12:41 (+0200), Joost Roeleveld said: On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote: @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` It doesn't try this on my system Yeah, I don't think that statement was entirely accurate. Deplean normally will not try to remove portage, because it satisfies the virtual/package-manager requirement, which is in @system. If, however, you have portage and another package satisfying virtual/package-manager installed, and the other package was in your world file, but portage wasn't then depclean *would* remove portage. This is the recent behavior change, which is why some people were surprised suddenly when nano or less or insert_your_favorite_virtual_here was suddenly wanting to get unmerged by --depclean.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said: Hi there, I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it message. I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. Now: # emerge -up world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up portage These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE=less%* # The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 (stable) as possible. What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? Firstly, regarding the subject line. Portage isn't in world. It's in the system set. Secondly, I really don't understand the question. You are in x86/stable, ok I understand that... Even in stable software gets updated. Portage is a piece of software. There is an update. There's nothing unusual about that. What exactly is the question? You could choose to not upgrade portage (though I don't know why you would do that), but that would mean you won't receive any bug fixes it may have, or take advantage of any new features it introduces. Or things may simply not work :D What exactly are you afraid of? How long have you been using Gentoo that you've never had to upgrade portage before? Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. -a
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
Am 31.07.2011 06:44, schrieb Stroller: Hi there, I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it message. I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. Now: # emerge -up world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] @system is part of @world, so that is to be expected. # emerge -up portage These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE=less%* [...] What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? TIA, Stroller. @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sun 31 July 2011 12:08:01 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly: On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the package. The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one it is. I don't see a problem. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 12:08 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said: On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote: Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage. Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem. :-) Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I read it :P They OP could have simply said Hey, when I synced I saw a message that I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world' or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package. Hooray. Nevertheless, as has already been said, yeah, it appears that system includes virtual/package-manager and not specifically sys-apps/portage (how diplomatic), so unless you run emerge with '--deep' or explicitly update the package name then it won't count. As for stable vs. unstable... I still don't understand what that has to do with it.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On 31 July 2011, at 10:02, Florian Philipp wrote: ... @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage` Many thanks! Perfect answer. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On 31 July 2011, at 13:15, Albert Hopkins wrote: Yeah, sorry about that. I think my understanding was clouded by all the peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions of portage. That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I read it :P They OP could have simply said Hey, when I synced I saw a message that I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world' or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package. Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really not for me. I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 / ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago. I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would be announcing. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
On Sunday, July 31 at 13:31 (+0100), Stroller said: Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of you should unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway, as I think I saw that view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really not for me. I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 / ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago. I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would be announcing. I've not seen anyone on this list suggest switching to unstable as to fix a bug, though admittedly I don't follow all threads and even the ones I do follow I don't follow fully usually as the signal/noise ratio gets pretty bad over time. But anyway, this isn't even a bug, just a change of behavior. Where were you expecting this announcement. There usually aren't announcements on gentoo-user. However, it is stated in the ChangeLog (which is where you should alwaysb check first ;-). Also, there was a change to how portage handles virtuals, which was also discussed some weeks ago. But it may not have been done in stable then. They also removed flex, bison, and other things from the system profile. This has broken a few ebuilds (I think I created at least 3 bugs myself). Again, there wasn't an announcement AFAIK, you just have to check the ChangeLogs and bugzilla. Anyway I don't think they announce every change they make to portage, but they do seem to appear in the ChangeLogs. -a
[gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?
Hi there, I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 stable (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently. During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it message. I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage. Now: # emerge -up world These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2] # emerge -up portage These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE=less%* # The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 (stable) as possible. What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check: Is this the behaviour I should be seeing? Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before? I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right. Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates? TIA, Stroller.
