Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg nice-to-have
On Thu, 2021-06-03 at 16:58 +0200, n952162 wrote: > On 6/3/21 4:52 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > > alias quickpkg='quickpkg --include-unmodified-config=y' ;-) > > > > > yeah, that's a good idea. But I think my suggestion is also good. > > The problem with such cover-my-ass aliases is they're never there when > you need them - and dependent on them. This is why I keep my bashrc in a git repository and just deploy it onto any machine I have to manage, because I also rely quite heavily on aliases, functions, et cetera.
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg nice-to-have
On 6/3/21 4:52 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:14:31 +0200, n952162 wrote: It sure would be nice if quickpkg would at least save config files by default, like to inittab.saved, for when you forget to supply --include-unmodified-config empty file because --include-config=n when 'quickpkg' was used. alias quickpkg='quickpkg --include-unmodified-config=y' ;-) yeah, that's a good idea. But I think my suggestion is also good. The problem with such cover-my-ass aliases is they're never there when you need them - and dependent on them.
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg nice-to-have
On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 15:14:31 +0200, n952162 wrote: > It sure would be nice if quickpkg would at least save config files by > default, like to inittab.saved, for when you forget to supply > --include-unmodified-config > > empty file because --include-config=n when 'quickpkg' was used. alias quickpkg='quickpkg --include-unmodified-config=y' ;-) -- Neil Bothwick Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demand. pgpI36vsnub8L.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg nice-to-have
On 6/3/21 3:14 PM, n952162 wrote: It sure would be nice if quickpkg would at least save config files by default, like to inittab.saved, for when you forget to supply --include-unmodified-config empty file because --include-config=n when 'quickpkg' was used. If the installation can test if the target config file is modified, then it could go ahead and save it at the same time. I this case, I copied /etc/inittab from the host
[gentoo-user] quickpkg nice-to-have
It sure would be nice if quickpkg would at least save config files by default, like to inittab.saved, for when you forget to supply --include-unmodified-config empty file because --include-config=n when 'quickpkg' was used. If the installation can test if the target config file is modified, then it could go ahead and save it at the same time.
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg ?
On 11/11/2012 08:02 PM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: > Hi, > > after crosscompiling into a rootfs at > /usr/armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi/. I want to quickpkg the results. > > How can I tell quickpkg to take the contents of that rootfs and not > parts of the "original" rootfs? > > Thank you very much in advance for any help! > > Best regards, > mcc > > > > qpkg http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/cross-development.xml#doc_chap5
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg ?
Am Sonntag, 11. November 2012, 20:02:55 schrieb meino.cra...@gmx.de: > Hi, > > after crosscompiling into a rootfs at > /usr/armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi/. I want to quickpkg the results. > > How can I tell quickpkg to take the contents of that rootfs and not > parts of the "original" rootfs? > > Thank you very much in advance for any help! > > Best regards, > mcc question: why did you not use builpkg(only) in the first place? -- #163933
[gentoo-user] quickpkg ?
Hi, after crosscompiling into a rootfs at /usr/armv7a-softfp-linux-gnueabi/. I want to quickpkg the results. How can I tell quickpkg to take the contents of that rootfs and not parts of the "original" rootfs? Thank you very much in advance for any help! Best regards, mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg on a complete system?
On Mar 19, 2012 6:13 AM, "Mark Knecht" wrote: > >8 snip > > eix -Ic --only-names | xargs quickpkg --include-config=y > > which seems to doing the job, although it's still running so I'll have > to count the packages when it completes. > I personally would use xargs' -P and -n options to introduce some parallelism. But I haven't actually tested that :-) Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg on a complete system?
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:18:22 -0700 > Mark Knecht wrote: > >> Hi, >> I have a system in which I've never used the buildpkg feature so I >> have no packages. The machine is completely up to date - i.e. - emerge >> -DuN @world does nothing new. >> >> I know if I turn on buildpkg and do an emerge -e @world, assuming >> all the compiling completes without error, emerge will create packages >> for everything that's install. That however takes lots of time. >> >> I was reading about the quickpkg feature which supposedly creates >> packages from what's already installed, but I'm not sure how to >> actually run that for a complete system like this. If I put >> FEATURES="quickpkg" in make.conf and run emerge -e @world, will emerge >> simply make the packages for anything that's already installed, but >> not actually compile the packages themselves? >> >> Thanks, >> Mark >> > > RTFM :-) > > "man quickpkg" lists "quickpkg @system" in the examples section. > Yeah, my bad and you're right about that, although if you thought it was a portage FEATURE and ''man buildpkg' doesn't return anything then you wouldn't even go looking for man quickpkg. (Or I didn't) > "quickpkg @world" works and does what you expect - tar and gzips the > entire package as it is on-disk. As to what is in the quickpkg, it's > the same list as you get from "equery files . > Yep, already done for the system in question. The first pass quickpkg --include-config=y @world only built the files specified by the @world set and not all the deep stuff so I ended up with eix -Ic --only-names | xargs quickpkg --include-config=y which seems to doing the job, although it's still running so I'll have to count the packages when it completes. > Thereafter, enable FEATURES="quickpkg" and portage will keep everything > new up to date. > Actually I suspect that's supposed to be FEATURES="buildpkg" which I use on other machines here at home. > Also read up on eclean, which helps to remove old quickpkg cruft > Yep, already use it. > > -- > Alan McKinnnon > alan.mckin...@gmail.com > > Thanks! - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg on a complete system?
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:18:22 -0700 Mark Knecht wrote: > Hi, >I have a system in which I've never used the buildpkg feature so I > have no packages. The machine is completely up to date - i.e. - emerge > -DuN @world does nothing new. > >I know if I turn on buildpkg and do an emerge -e @world, assuming > all the compiling completes without error, emerge will create packages > for everything that's install. That however takes lots of time. > >I was reading about the quickpkg feature which supposedly creates > packages from what's already installed, but I'm not sure how to > actually run that for a complete system like this. If I put > FEATURES="quickpkg" in make.conf and run emerge -e @world, will emerge > simply make the packages for anything that's already installed, but > not actually compile the packages themselves? > > Thanks, > Mark > RTFM :-) "man quickpkg" lists "quickpkg @system" in the examples section. "quickpkg @world" works and does what you expect - tar and gzips the entire package as it is on-disk. As to what is in the quickpkg, it's the same list as you get from "equery files . Thereafter, enable FEATURES="quickpkg" and portage will keep everything new up to date. Also read up on eclean, which helps to remove old quickpkg cruft -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] quickpkg on a complete system?
Hi, I have a system in which I've never used the buildpkg feature so I have no packages. The machine is completely up to date - i.e. - emerge -DuN @world does nothing new. I know if I turn on buildpkg and do an emerge -e @world, assuming all the compiling completes without error, emerge will create packages for everything that's install. That however takes lots of time. I was reading about the quickpkg feature which supposedly creates packages from what's already installed, but I'm not sure how to actually run that for a complete system like this. If I put FEATURES="quickpkg" in make.conf and run emerge -e @world, will emerge simply make the packages for anything that's already installed, but not actually compile the packages themselves? Thanks, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
Just for info, on my 64-bit system I just updated Portage w/o any problem: root:525 etc> equery belongs /usr/bin/quickpkg [ Searching for file(s) /usr/bin/quickpkg in *... ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 (/usr/bin/quickpkg -> ../lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg) root:526 etc> ls -l /usr/bin/quickpkg lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 2010-11-27 14:23 /usr/bin/quickpkg -> ../lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg root:527 etc> equery belongs /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg [ Searching for file(s) /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg in *... ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 (/usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg) root:528 etc> ls -l /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 9224 2010-11-27 14:23 /usr/lib64/portage/bin/quickpkg I've never set 'collision-protect' in make.conf , but have never run into a problem as a result. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:46 on Saturday 27 November 2010, Joseph did opine thusly: > On 11/27/10 17:51, Adam Carter wrote: > >> * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged > >> > >> * > >> * Detected file collision(s): > >> * > >> * /usr/bin/quickpkg > >> > >> Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out > >> "collision-protect" in make.conf? > >> > >> I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the > > > >update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage; > > > ># qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg > >sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg) > > I just "--sync" and it stopping at the same place :-/ > Detected file collision(s): > /usr/bin/quickpkg You didn't do anything about the collision, so it's still happening. Read the portage man pages to gain an understanding of how portage works and what --sync updates (it will not fix your problem) Some package installed /usr/bin/quickpkg, now portage wants to install it. Presumably, the old package is now part of portage itself. Anyway, while that binary is there portage is not going to install itself. This is a good thing and you do not ever want to disable it. So sit quietly for a moment and figure out why you need to delete /usr/bin/quickpkg, then do so and emerge portage. This time it will work. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
On 11/27/10 17:51, Adam Carter wrote: * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged * * Detected file collision(s): * * /usr/bin/quickpkg Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out "collision-protect" in make.conf? I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage; # qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg) I just "--sync" and it stopping at the same place :-/ Detected file collision(s): /usr/bin/quickpkg -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
Apparently, though unproven, at 07:47 on Saturday 27 November 2010, Joseph did opine thusly: > It seems to me new portage-2.1.9.24 doesn't like quickpkg, it complains: > > Installing (1 of 1) sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 > * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other > * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq > * owners / ` to identify the installed package that owns a > * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do > * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at > * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s). > * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from > * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough > * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file > * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which > * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file > * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message. > * > * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged > * > * Detected file collision(s): > * > * /usr/bin/quickpkg > > Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out > "collision-protect" in make.conf? You should do neither. You should do what the message says, which is to find out why you have a collision and then resolve it. You must definitely not remove collision-protect from FEATURES equery belongs /usr/bin/quickpkg and then make a decision when you have that answer. Adam's later advice is correct. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
> * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged > * > * Detected file collision(s): > * > * /usr/bin/quickpkg > > Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out > "collision-protect" in make.conf? > > I just ran the same update (and it reported it was going ahead with the update despite the collision). Looks like quickpkg is now in portage; # qfile /usr/bin/quickpkg sys-apps/portage (/usr/bin/quickpkg)
[gentoo-user] quickpkg - blocking portage-2.1.9.24
It seems to me new portage-2.1.9.24 doesn't like quickpkg, it complains: Installing (1 of 1) sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 * This package will overwrite one or more files that may belong to other * packages (see list below). You can use a command such as `portageq * owners / ` to identify the installed package that owns a * file. If portageq reports that only one package owns a file then do * NOT file a bug report. A bug report is only useful if it identifies at * least two or more packages that are known to install the same file(s). * If a collision occurs and you can not explain where the file came from * then you should simply ignore the collision since there is not enough * information to determine if a real problem exists. Please do NOT file * a bug report at http://bugs.gentoo.org unless you report exactly which * two packages install the same file(s). Once again, please do NOT file * a bug report unless you have completely understood the above message. * * package sys-apps/portage-2.1.9.24 NOT merged * * Detected file collision(s): * * /usr/bin/quickpkg Should I remove the quickpkg to install new portage or comment-out "collision-protect" in make.conf? -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:24:39 +, Rodrigo Lazo wrote: > Well, thanks all of you for your replies. I did rebuild the package > using quickpkg but it didn't fix the problem, the only way I found to > do it was compiling it on the second computer. That fix it but it > wouldn't be an alternative if somebody find this problem and have > twenty machines to install. What else could be done? Do you see the same problem if you install on the first machine with --buildpkg instead of creating the package post-install with quickpkg. There could be a bug in quickpkg. In you situation, I would add buildpkg to FEATURES, to have packages built automatically. This has the further advantage that emerge does this by compiling the source, building the package and then installing from the binary package, so any problems will show up at build time rather than waiting to bite you later. -- Neil Bothwick Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. pgpPqsXMfMCgJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
Hi, On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 23:24:39 + Rodrigo Lazo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, thanks all of you for your replies. I did rebuild the package > using quickpkg but it didn't fix the problem, the only way I found to > do it was compiling it on the second computer. That fix it but it > wouldn't be an alternative if somebody find this problem and have > twenty machines to install. What else could be done? Copying > the /etc/gtk-2.0 dir would be an alternative? > > Regards > Using binary packages depends on your machine arch, USE-flags eventually many other things. As a safe bet could use -i686 (see also -mtune vs -march in CFLAGS) as a common arch and syncronize USE-flags across machines. There is a *little* price for so much flexibility (as in Gentoo). There were a lot more and detailed info about this, search for it. > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:53:12 +0100 > Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Saturday 17 September 2005 03:23, Willie Wong wrote: > > > It is a curious thing: apparently portage doesn't think /etc/gtk-2.0 > > > belongs to any package: > > > > Ahh, but it does... > > > > gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk-2.0/*' > > [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk-2.0/* in *... ] > > x11-libs/gtk+-2.6.8 (/etc/gtk-2.0) > > gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk/*' > > [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk/* in *... ] > > x11-libs/gtk+-1.2.10-r11 (/etc/gtk) > > > > Note the slightly odd usage. equery appears to only be able to link files > > to > > packages, not directories. > > > > As for the parent problem, re-quickpkg, then check that the exact version > > being packaged up does in fact contain those files, is the best I can > > suggest > > off the top of my head. > > > > -- > > Mike Williams > > -- > > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > > > > HTH. Rumen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
Well, thanks all of you for your replies. I did rebuild the package using quickpkg but it didn't fix the problem, the only way I found to do it was compiling it on the second computer. That fix it but it wouldn't be an alternative if somebody find this problem and have twenty machines to install. What else could be done? Copying the /etc/gtk-2.0 dir would be an alternative? Regards On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 03:53:12 +0100 Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Saturday 17 September 2005 03:23, Willie Wong wrote: > > It is a curious thing: apparently portage doesn't think /etc/gtk-2.0 > > belongs to any package: > > Ahh, but it does... > > gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk-2.0/*' > [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk-2.0/* in *... ] > x11-libs/gtk+-2.6.8 (/etc/gtk-2.0) > gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk/*' > [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk/* in *... ] > x11-libs/gtk+-1.2.10-r11 (/etc/gtk) > > Note the slightly odd usage. equery appears to only be able to link files to > packages, not directories. > > As for the parent problem, re-quickpkg, then check that the exact version > being packaged up does in fact contain those files, is the best I can suggest > off the top of my head. > > -- > Mike Williams > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list > -- Rodrigo Lazo (rlazo) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
On Saturday 17 September 2005 03:23, Willie Wong wrote: > It is a curious thing: apparently portage doesn't think /etc/gtk-2.0 > belongs to any package: Ahh, but it does... gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk-2.0/*' [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk-2.0/* in *... ] x11-libs/gtk+-2.6.8 (/etc/gtk-2.0) gimli ~ # equery belongs '/etc/gtk/*' [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk/* in *... ] x11-libs/gtk+-1.2.10-r11 (/etc/gtk) Note the slightly odd usage. equery appears to only be able to link files to packages, not directories. As for the parent problem, re-quickpkg, then check that the exact version being packaged up does in fact contain those files, is the best I can suggest off the top of my head. -- Mike Williams -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
It is a curious thing: apparently portage doesn't think /etc/gtk-2.0 belongs to any package: [10:19 PM]wwong ~ $ equery belongs /etc/gtk-2.0/ [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk-2.0/ in *... ] [10:20 PM]wwong ~ $ [10:20 PM]wwong ~ $ equery belongs /etc/gtk [ Searching for file(s) /etc/gtk in *... ] x11-libs/gtk+-1.2.10-r11 (/etc/gtk) [10:21 PM]wwong ~ $ That might be the reason it was not packaged... W On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:52:21PM +, rodrigo lazo wrote: > Hi, > > I have two machines, and portage only in one of them. They share > portage and have exactly the same configuration, one compiles and the > other uses packages from the other. When I installed acroread I ran > into problems > > I ran quickpkg gtk+ and everything worked fine, the other installed > gtk+ and the same with acroread. But when I run acroread in the second > one a lot of messages about missing /etc/gkt-2.0. And its true, the > package didn't have that directory but the computer that compiled it > do > > Why is that? > > -- > gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- "What are you talking about? " "Never mind, eat the fruit. " "You know, this place almost looks like the Garden of Eden. " "Eat the fruit. " "Sounds quite like it too. " Sortir en Pantoufles: up 36 days, 5:24 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] quickpkg gtk+
Hi, I have two machines, and portage only in one of them. They share portage and have exactly the same configuration, one compiles and the other uses packages from the other. When I installed acroread I ran into problems I ran quickpkg gtk+ and everything worked fine, the other installed gtk+ and the same with acroread. But when I run acroread in the second one a lot of messages about missing /etc/gkt-2.0. And its true, the package didn't have that directory but the computer that compiled it do Why is that? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
