Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 4:02:52 AM Walter Dnes wrote:
>   How many heads will explode?  I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
> wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey.  The cross-compiler
> *DEMANDS* a package.use directory.
> 
> [d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/
> total 24
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 .
> drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 ..
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  274 May  4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use
> 
> 

Mine looks similar. The reason it demands a directory is because it owns those 
files and will make changes to them during the build stages. If you want to 
make changes to the cross compiler use flags you need to make them on your own 
package.use or some other file or it will overwrite them.

Also one exception to the directory naming convention is the keywords file. The 
file was package.accept_keywords but the directory is package.keywords. IIRC 
crossdev just created that one and portage used both except for autounmask 
that kept wanting to write to the cross-* files until I moved that file. I 
always tought autounmask would write to the original package.* filename (since 
cross-* comes before package.*) until I saw Alan's reply.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Tuesday, September 01, 2015 11:29:42 PM Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:26:10 -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> 
> > Also one exception to the directory naming convention is the keywords
> > file. The file was package.accept_keywords but the directory is
> > package.keywords.
> 
> The name was changed from package.keywords to package.accept_keywords to
> match the variable name in make.conf. Either can be a directory, there's
> even an example in the portage man page of a directory with the new name.

I guess crossdev hasn't caught up to that change (at least the stable one). It 
only uses the package.keywords directory.

> > I always tought autounmask would write
> > to the original package.* filename (since cross-* comes before
> > package.*) until I saw Alan's reply.
> 
> Portage treats all the files in the directory as a single file, in
> lexical order. If it's a file, portage adds auto-unmask entries to the
> end ot make sure they are not counteracted by something else in the file.
> If you use a directory, portage adds the changes to the end of the last
> file for the same reason. As with many things, I though portage was doing
> the wrong thing by adding to the "wrong" file, until I realised just
> what it was doing and why. See the section on -autounmask-write
> in man emerge.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Neil Bothwick]

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 15:26:10 -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:

> Also one exception to the directory naming convention is the keywords
> file. The file was package.accept_keywords but the directory is
> package.keywords.

The name was changed from package.keywords to package.accept_keywords to
match the variable name in make.conf. Either can be a directory, there's
even an example in the portage man page of a directory with the new name.

> I always tought autounmask would write
> to the original package.* filename (since cross-* comes before
> package.*) until I saw Alan's reply.

Portage treats all the files in the directory as a single file, in
lexical order. If it's a file, portage adds auto-unmask entries to the
end ot make sure they are not counteracted by something else in the file.
If you use a directory, portage adds the changes to the end of the last
file for the same reason. As with many things, I though portage was doing
the wrong thing by adding to the "wrong" file, until I realised just
what it was doing and why. See the section on -autounmask-write
in man emerge.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!


pgpjsxV74UIz9.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Alan McKinnon]

On 01/09/2015 12:21, Bill Kenworthy wrote:
> On 01/09/15 16:10, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
>> On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes  wrote:
>>>   How many heads will explode?  I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
>>> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
>>> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
>>> wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey.  The cross-compiler
>>> *DEMANDS* a package.use directory.
>>>
>>> [d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/
>>> total 24
>>> drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 .
>>> drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 ..
>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help
>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p
>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  274 May  4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu
>>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use
>>>
>>> --
>>> Walter Dnes 
>>> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, crazy, right? I mean, a configuration file WITHIN a directory!!
>> Woah, it's mind-boggling, dude!!
>>
>> -- Emanuele Rusconi
>>
> 
> Hey! - I am not the only one doing this then :)
> 
> And it was also because of a cross-compiler.  When I looked at how much
> extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!)
> advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers sanity ...

Switching from a single file to a directory of files is a needless PITA,
because the file and the directory *have*the*same*name* 

So you must first move the file out of the way or rename it, then move
it into the newly created directory.

What ought to have happened, and the convention had long existed when
this scheme for portage was thought up, is to call the directory

/etc/portage/package.mask.d/

then you could easily have a main file and as many subsidiary files as
you need/want. Just like how every other package seems to do it.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Bill Kenworthy]

On 01/09/15 16:10, Emanuele Rusconi wrote:
> On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes  wrote:
>>   How many heads will explode?  I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
>> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
>> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
>> wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey.  The cross-compiler
>> *DEMANDS* a package.use directory.
>>
>> [d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/
>> total 24
>> drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 .
>> drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 ..
>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help
>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p
>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  274 May  4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu
>> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use
>>
>> --
>> Walter Dnes 
>> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>>
> 
> Yeah, crazy, right? I mean, a configuration file WITHIN a directory!!
> Woah, it's mind-boggling, dude!!
> 
> -- Emanuele Rusconi
> 

Hey! - I am not the only one doing this then :)

And it was also because of a cross-compiler.  When I looked at how much
extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!)
advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers sanity ...

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Emanuele Rusconi]

On 1 September 2015 at 10:02, Walter Dnes  wrote:
>   How many heads will explode?  I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
> file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
> set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
> wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey.  The cross-compiler
> *DEMANDS* a package.use directory.
>
> [d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/
> total 24
> drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 .
> drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 ..
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root   37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  274 May  4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu
> -rw-r--r--  1 root root  585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use
>
> --
> Walter Dnes 
> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>

Yeah, crazy, right? I mean, a configuration file WITHIN a directory!!
Woah, it's mind-boggling, dude!!

-- Emanuele Rusconi

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Walter Dnes]

  How many heads will explode?  I have /etc/portage/package.use/package.use
file (YES!) The only reason I made a package.use directory was because I
set up a cross-build environment, so that my ancient 32-bit Atom netbook
wouldn't have to spend 14 hours building Seamonkey.  The cross-compiler
*DEMANDS* a package.use directory.

[d531][waltdnes][~] ll /etc/portage/package.use/
total 24
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:05 .
drwxr-xr-x 13 root root 4096 Jul 30 17:03 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   41 Mar 25 00:04 cross---help
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   37 Mar 25 00:01 cross--p
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  274 May  4 12:07 cross-i686-pc-linux-gnu
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  585 Jul 30 17:05 package.use

-- 
Walter Dnes 
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Michel Catudal]

Le 2015-09-01 06:21, Bill Kenworthy a écrit :

Hey! - I am not the only one doing this then :)

And it was also because of a cross-compiler.  When I looked at how much
extra work this type fragmentation causes, and how little (or any!)
advantage it gives makes one wonder about the designers sanity ...

BillK




I think that it is a very good idea. You can have several files in that 
directory. For example you can have one for anything to do with app that need a 
lot of override, this is needed a lot for MIPS and ARM ports.

Enven on a PC with AMD64 that can be usefull

michel@michel ~ $ dir /etc/portage/package.use/
total 28
drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096  1 sep 10:59 .
drwxr-xr-x 14 root root 4096  5 aoû 23:11 ..
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  326 30 jun 19:57 cross-armv7a-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
-rw-r--r--  1 root root  366  1 jui 12:01 cross-mipsel-hardfloat-linux-gnueabi
-rw-r--r--  1 root root   33 22 fév  2015 iputils
-rw-r--r--  1 root root 1988  1 jui 21:36 misc.use


The misc.use on my ARM boards is getting a little big so I will split it in 
pieces to make it more readable.
When you need to add stuff, a big file is not as easy to handle. Having 
multiple files makes this very handy.

--
For Linux Software visit
http://home.comcast.net/~mcatudal
http://sourceforge.net/projects/suzielinux/

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:06 PM, Neil Bothwick  wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:33:58 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>
>> cat rubygems
>> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
>>
>> Is this format acceptable? Or should I have used two separate files,
>> one for 'dev-lang/rubygems', and another for 'virtual/rubygems'?
>
> Use whatever suits you, portage doesn't care whether you use one file for
> everything or one file for each setting.
>
> My preference is to create a file for each program I use, and put the
> settings for dependent packages in there, that way I know what they
> relate to. It also means that if I remove the package, I can remove the
> file too. This to my mind is the key advantage of the separate file
> approach, a single file is too unwieldy without extensive comments, and I
> am too lazy to add useful comments.
>
> But it's up to you, do whatever works for your way of thinking - it's all
> the same to portage.
>
> One thing to be aware of is that portage adds "auto-unmask" entries to the
> "last" file in package.use, so I always create a zzz-auto-unmask file
> then transfer entries from there to the appropriate location.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick
>

Understood. Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Todd Goodman]

* Alexander Kapshuk  [150831 15:35]:
> Having read the email exchange on the possibility of using
> 'package.use' as a directory, I thought I would give that a try.
> 
> Here is what I have attempted so far.
> 
> cd /etc/portage
> mv package.use package.use.COPY
> mkdir package.use
> cd package.use
> awk -F'[/\t ]+' '{printf("echo \047%s\047 >> ", $0); sub("-[0-9]+.*",
> "", $2); print $2}' ../package.use.COPY
> 
> NOTE; the awk output just generates the command lines for the shell to
> run. If the output is acceptable, it should be piped through to the
> shell.
> 
> Here is the contents of the original 'package.use' file:
> 
> cat package.use
> =dev-lang/python-2.7.9-r1 sqlite
> >=dev-ruby/json-1.8.2-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=dev-ruby/racc-1.4.11 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=dev-ruby/rake-0.9.6-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=dev-ruby/rdoc-4.0.1-r2 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=media-libs/harfbuzz-0.9.38 icu
> >=media-video/ffmpeg-2.6.3 theora
> >=sys-libs/zlib-1.2.8-r1 minizip
> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
> gnome-base/gvfs -http gphoto2 mtp
> media-video/vlc a52 aac bidi cdda cdio dts dvd flac freetype gnutls
> httpd libass live lua mad matroska mpeg ogg oggvorbis qt4 stream svga
> theora vcd vlm wxwindows xv
> net-print/hplip scanner qt4
> sys-apps/busybox -pam
> sys-devel/gcc objc
> sys-process/cronie anacron
> x11-base/xorg-server udev
> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager -udisks
> xfce-extra/xfce4-sensors-plugin hddtemp lm_sensors
> 
> NOTE: There are two entries for 'rubygems' there.
> 
> Here is the awk script output:
> 
> echo '=dev-lang/python-2.7.9-r1 sqlite' >> python
> echo '>=dev-ruby/json-1.8.2-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> json
> echo '>=dev-ruby/racc-1.4.11 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> racc
> echo '>=dev-ruby/rake-0.9.6-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rake
> echo '>=dev-ruby/rdoc-4.0.1-r2 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rdoc
> echo '>=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rubygems
> echo '>=media-libs/harfbuzz-0.9.38 icu' >> harfbuzz
> echo '>=media-video/ffmpeg-2.6.3 theora' >> ffmpeg
> echo '>=sys-libs/zlib-1.2.8-r1 minizip' >> zlib
> echo '>=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rubygems
> echo 'gnome-base/gvfs -http gphoto2 mtp' >> gvfs
> echo 'media-video/vlc a52 aac bidi cdda cdio dts dvd flac freetype
> gnutls httpd libass live lua mad matroska mpeg ogg oggvorbis qt4
> stream svga theora vcd vlm wxwindows xv' >> vlc
> echo 'net-print/hplip scanner qt4' >> hplip
> echo 'sys-apps/busybox -pam' >> busybox
> echo 'sys-devel/gcc objc' >> gcc
> echo 'sys-process/cronie anacron' >> cronie
> echo 'x11-base/xorg-server udev' >> xorg-server
> echo 'xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager -udisks' >> xfce4-power-manager
> echo 'xfce-extra/xfce4-sensors-plugin hddtemp lm_sensors' >>
> xfce4-sensors-plugin
> 
> The two 'rubygems' entries I had in the original 'package.use' file
> went into a single 'rubygems' file:
> 
> cat rubygems
> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
> 
> Is this format acceptable? Or should I have used two separate files,
> one for 'dev-lang/rubygems', and another for 'virtual/rubygems'?
> 
> I have run 'emerge -auUND @world' since the transition, which voiced
> no complaints so far.
> 
> The list's input would be appreciated.

Those should all be fine.  I tend to make a file per package but I think
you could have just moved your original package.use into the
/etc/portage/package.use directory and everything would be fine (aside
from you not gaining any benefit from separate files.)

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Todd Goodman  wrote:
> * Alexander Kapshuk  [150831 15:35]:
>> Having read the email exchange on the possibility of using
>> 'package.use' as a directory, I thought I would give that a try.
>>
>> Here is what I have attempted so far.
>>
>> cd /etc/portage
>> mv package.use package.use.COPY
>> mkdir package.use
>> cd package.use
>> awk -F'[/\t ]+' '{printf("echo \047%s\047 >> ", $0); sub("-[0-9]+.*",
>> "", $2); print $2}' ../package.use.COPY
>>
>> NOTE; the awk output just generates the command lines for the shell to
>> run. If the output is acceptable, it should be piped through to the
>> shell.
>>
>> Here is the contents of the original 'package.use' file:
>>
>> cat package.use
>> =dev-lang/python-2.7.9-r1 sqlite
>> >=dev-ruby/json-1.8.2-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=dev-ruby/racc-1.4.11 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=dev-ruby/rake-0.9.6-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=dev-ruby/rdoc-4.0.1-r2 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=media-libs/harfbuzz-0.9.38 icu
>> >=media-video/ffmpeg-2.6.3 theora
>> >=sys-libs/zlib-1.2.8-r1 minizip
>> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> gnome-base/gvfs -http gphoto2 mtp
>> media-video/vlc a52 aac bidi cdda cdio dts dvd flac freetype gnutls
>> httpd libass live lua mad matroska mpeg ogg oggvorbis qt4 stream svga
>> theora vcd vlm wxwindows xv
>> net-print/hplip scanner qt4
>> sys-apps/busybox -pam
>> sys-devel/gcc objc
>> sys-process/cronie anacron
>> x11-base/xorg-server udev
>> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager -udisks
>> xfce-extra/xfce4-sensors-plugin hddtemp lm_sensors
>>
>> NOTE: There are two entries for 'rubygems' there.
>>
>> Here is the awk script output:
>>
>> echo '=dev-lang/python-2.7.9-r1 sqlite' >> python
>> echo '>=dev-ruby/json-1.8.2-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> json
>> echo '>=dev-ruby/racc-1.4.11 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> racc
>> echo '>=dev-ruby/rake-0.9.6-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rake
>> echo '>=dev-ruby/rdoc-4.0.1-r2 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rdoc
>> echo '>=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rubygems
>> echo '>=media-libs/harfbuzz-0.9.38 icu' >> harfbuzz
>> echo '>=media-video/ffmpeg-2.6.3 theora' >> ffmpeg
>> echo '>=sys-libs/zlib-1.2.8-r1 minizip' >> zlib
>> echo '>=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21' >> rubygems
>> echo 'gnome-base/gvfs -http gphoto2 mtp' >> gvfs
>> echo 'media-video/vlc a52 aac bidi cdda cdio dts dvd flac freetype
>> gnutls httpd libass live lua mad matroska mpeg ogg oggvorbis qt4
>> stream svga theora vcd vlm wxwindows xv' >> vlc
>> echo 'net-print/hplip scanner qt4' >> hplip
>> echo 'sys-apps/busybox -pam' >> busybox
>> echo 'sys-devel/gcc objc' >> gcc
>> echo 'sys-process/cronie anacron' >> cronie
>> echo 'x11-base/xorg-server udev' >> xorg-server
>> echo 'xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager -udisks' >> xfce4-power-manager
>> echo 'xfce-extra/xfce4-sensors-plugin hddtemp lm_sensors' >>
>> xfce4-sensors-plugin
>>
>> The two 'rubygems' entries I had in the original 'package.use' file
>> went into a single 'rubygems' file:
>>
>> cat rubygems
>> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
>> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21
>>
>> Is this format acceptable? Or should I have used two separate files,
>> one for 'dev-lang/rubygems', and another for 'virtual/rubygems'?
>>
>> I have run 'emerge -auUND @world' since the transition, which voiced
>> no complaints so far.
>>
>> The list's input would be appreciated.
>
> Those should all be fine.  I tend to make a file per package but I think
> you could have just moved your original package.use into the
> /etc/portage/package.use directory and everything would be fine (aside
> from you not gaining any benefit from separate files.)
>
> Todd
>

Understood. Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] advice on transitioning from package.use file to package.use directory

[Neil Bothwick]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 22:33:58 +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:

> cat rubygems
> >=dev-ruby/rubygems-2.2.5-r1 ruby_targets_ruby21
> >=virtual/rubygems-10 ruby_targets_ruby21  
> 
> Is this format acceptable? Or should I have used two separate files,
> one for 'dev-lang/rubygems', and another for 'virtual/rubygems'?

Use whatever suits you, portage doesn't care whether you use one file for
everything or one file for each setting.

My preference is to create a file for each program I use, and put the
settings for dependent packages in there, that way I know what they
relate to. It also means that if I remove the package, I can remove the
file too. This to my mind is the key advantage of the separate file
approach, a single file is too unwieldy without extensive comments, and I
am too lazy to add useful comments.

But it's up to you, do whatever works for your way of thinking - it's all
the same to portage.

One thing to be aware of is that portage adds "auto-unmask" entries to the
"last" file in package.use, so I always create a zzz-auto-unmask file
then transfer entries from there to the appropriate location.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

*Libra*: /(Sept 23--Oct 23)/ An unfortunate typo on your application
results in your being accepted into the Legion Of Superherpes.


pgpb3WLXQEErd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature