Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/25/2010 07:07 PM, Dale wrote: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> On 25.1.2010 18.20, Jacob Godserv wrote: >>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 06:32, Petteri Räty >>> wrote: I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was already fulfilled. >>> >>> So then how was the original problem resolved? Sorry, I missed that >>> (and can't seem to find a resolution in this thread). >>> >> >> There's already an open bug in Portage and the system set won't be >> changed for this. >> >> Regards, >> Petteri >> >> > > So it's not resolved, there just won't be any changes? > > Dale > There's nothing more to discuss on this mailing list so from the mailing list stand point the the thread is done. Any implementation details etc belong to bugzilla. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Petteri Räty wrote: On 25.1.2010 18.20, Jacob Godserv wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 06:32, Petteri Räty wrote: I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was already fulfilled. So then how was the original problem resolved? Sorry, I missed that (and can't seem to find a resolution in this thread). There's already an open bug in Portage and the system set won't be changed for this. Regards, Petteri So it's not resolved, there just won't be any changes? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 25.1.2010 18.06, Dale wrote: I am subscribed to -user as well. I been using Gentoo since the 1.4 days. This is about improving portage which is a good thing to talk about here. The devs do it, not the user. ;-) Also, I already know how to use portage pretty good. I'm not asking for support just trying to improve things. I categorize it as user support when trying to explain things that you can find out in the Portage man pages. I know we don't do a good job at communicating new things to users but improving that belongs to an another thread. Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 25.1.2010 18.20, Jacob Godserv wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 06:32, Petteri Räty wrote: I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was already fulfilled. So then how was the original problem resolved? Sorry, I missed that (and can't seem to find a resolution in this thread). There's already an open bug in Portage and the system set won't be changed for this. Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Hi, (although this is no user support list...) On 2010-01-25 11:02 UTC Dale wrote: > So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? See `man emerge`: --depclean (-c) [...] Depclean serves as a dependency aware version of --unmerge. When given one or more atoms, it will unmerge matched packages that have no reverse dependencies. Use --depclean together with --verbose to show reverse dependencies. Patrick. -- Key ID: 0x86E346D4http://patrick-nagel.net/key.asc Fingerprint: 7745 E1BE FA8B FBAD 76AB 2BFC C981 E686 86E3 46D4 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 06:32, Petteri Räty wrote: > I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's > gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was > already fulfilled. So then how was the original problem resolved? Sorry, I missed that (and can't seem to find a resolution in this thread). -- Jacob "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." Are you ready?
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Petteri Räty wrote: On 25.1.2010 13.30, Petteri Räty wrote: So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? Dale :-) :-) You would first have to define the reverse to avoid misunderstanding. --noreplace (-n) Skips the packages specified on the command-line that have already been installed. Reverse: Install packages that are not already installed - This is what Portage does by default Reverse: Skips packages that are not installed - Makes no sense with installation actions. Is this what you mean? pena betelgeuse # emerge --depclean foobar >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean Regards, Petteri I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was already fulfilled. Regards, Petteri Definition of reverse -n option. emerge --remove-from-world pidgin That would remove the entry pidgin from the world file. Then a user could use --depclean to remove pidgin and other dependencies that are no longer needed. There would be no need to use -C in that case. I am subscribed to -user as well. I been using Gentoo since the 1.4 days. This is about improving portage which is a good thing to talk about here. The devs do it, not the user. ;-) Also, I already know how to use portage pretty good. I'm not asking for support just trying to improve things. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 25.1.2010 13.30, Petteri Räty wrote: So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? Dale :-) :-) You would first have to define the reverse to avoid misunderstanding. --noreplace (-n) Skips the packages specified on the command-line that have already been installed. Reverse: Install packages that are not already installed - This is what Portage does by default Reverse: Skips packages that are not installed - Makes no sense with installation actions. Is this what you mean? pena betelgeuse # emerge --depclean foobar >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean Regards, Petteri I should also add that this is not a user support mailing list as there's gentoo-user for that purpose. I think the original purpose of the thread was already fulfilled. Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 25.1.2010 13.02, Dale wrote: Petteri Räty wrote: On 01/25/2010 04:28 AM, Dale wrote: Well put. I would agree that a simple warning should be given before removing a system package or a package that system must have, especially portage. Maybe what portage needs is a reverse -n feature. Instead of adding something to the world file, it removes a unwanted package from the world file and then the user could use --depclean to remove that package and its no longer needed friends. I assume this is doable. You can already use --depclean for this. Regards, Petteri So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? Dale :-) :-) You would first have to define the reverse to avoid misunderstanding. --noreplace (-n) Skips the packages specified on the command-line that have already been installed. Reverse: Install packages that are not already installed - This is what Portage does by default Reverse: Skips packages that are not installed - Makes no sense with installation actions. Is this what you mean? pena betelgeuse # emerge --depclean foobar >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean Regards, Petteri
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
2010-01-24 22:15:17 Mike Frysinger napisał(a): > On Sunday 24 January 2010 00:12:39 Benny Pedersen wrote: > > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does > > not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host > > sounds a bug that should be filed so it can be fixed There's already bug #268724. Anyway, app-admin/eselect-python probably will have to be added to system set for a suggested feature for EAPI="5". -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Petteri Räty wrote: On 01/25/2010 04:28 AM, Dale wrote: Well put. I would agree that a simple warning should be given before removing a system package or a package that system must have, especially portage. Maybe what portage needs is a reverse -n feature. Instead of adding something to the world file, it removes a unwanted package from the world file and then the user could use --depclean to remove that package and its no longer needed friends. I assume this is doable. You can already use --depclean for this. Regards, Petteri So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/25/2010 04:28 AM, Dale wrote: > > Well put. I would agree that a simple warning should be given before > removing a system package or a package that system must have, especially > portage. > Maybe what portage needs is a reverse -n feature. Instead of adding > something to the world file, it removes a unwanted package from the > world file and then the user could use --depclean to remove that package > and its no longer needed friends. I assume this is doable. > You can already use --depclean for this. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/25/2010 02:02 AM, Dale wrote: > Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should > include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to > work. If it can't contain python then portage has a problem. As I > pointed out in another reply, portage won't let you unmerge itself but > it will let you unmerge a package that will render portage useless. If > I can unmerge python then portage should just go ahead and let me > unmerge portage itself too. At least it is easier to repair removing > portage. > Dale > Again let's try again so maybe you understand the issues here. You can see the contents of the system set like this: emerge --nodeps -epv @system (on Portage 2.2) It doesn't have eselect-python: pena portage-trunk # emerge --nodeps -epv @system | grep eselect-python pena portage-trunk # You must differentiate between the @system set and what you think of as "system packages". The set should for maintenance reasons reflect it's true purpose. Again you can file a bug for Portage to warn about removing it's deps and Portage maintainers can see if it's feasibly doable. Another thing we should consider is writing a news item educating users how to use Portage properly these days. At least ACCEPT_LICENSE and --depclean need attention. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Richard Freeman wrote: On 01/24/2010 07:02 PM, Dale wrote: Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to work. It should include the programs directly involved in booting, and the package manager. I'm not sure that it should contain their dependencies - since that information can be derived from the packages themselves. I see your point but if removing python renders portage useless, then portage is not any good either. So, if portage will not warn against removing python, it may as well not warn about removing portage either. The system needs both to work. As I pointed out in another reply, portage won't let you unmerge itself but it will let you unmerge a package that will render portage useless. Well, it shouldn't allow you to unmerge anything that will render ANYTHING useless without some explicit instruction to do so. The documentation does warn of this behavior: --unmerge (-C) WARNING: This action can remove important packages! Removes all matching packages. This does no checking of dependencies, so it may remove packages necessary for the proper operation of your system. Its arguments can be atoms or ebuilds. For a dependency aware version of --unmerge, use --depclean or --prune. If you use --depclean to remove your package then you're safe. Note - the command line option names are not well-chosen here. -C should really be --unmerge-without-checking-dependencies-unsafe or some other obnoxious option, and --depclean should be the easy to type parameter. I agree that since --depclean has improved, a LOT, that it is the safest way to remove a package. Maybe that reverse -n feature may be considered. Reserve the -C for someone that knows what not to remove. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 07:02 PM, Dale wrote: Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to work. It should include the programs directly involved in booting, and the package manager. I'm not sure that it should contain their dependencies - since that information can be derived from the packages themselves. As I pointed out in another reply, portage won't let you unmerge itself but it will let you unmerge a package that will render portage useless. Well, it shouldn't allow you to unmerge anything that will render ANYTHING useless without some explicit instruction to do so. The documentation does warn of this behavior: --unmerge (-C) WARNING: This action can remove important packages! Removes all matching packages. This does no checking of dependencies, so it may remove packages necessary for the proper operation of your system. Its arguments can be atoms or ebuilds. For a dependency aware version of --unmerge, use --depclean or --prune. If you use --depclean to remove your package then you're safe. Note - the command line option names are not well-chosen here. -C should really be --unmerge-without-checking-dependencies-unsafe or some other obnoxious option, and --depclean should be the easy to type parameter.
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Jacob Godserv wrote: On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 19:02, Dale wrote: Since unmerging python results in a broken system, I'm not sure how this "pollutes" anything. The system set is to maintain a working and bootable system that can install packages and portage requires python to work. What good is a Gentoo system without a working package manager? There are two issues here: * Avoiding hacks for deciding which packages are needed for system * Helping users avoid the dangerous mistake of crippling the package manager. Here's how I see this break down. To avoid crippling the package manager, the user must be warned of an action that will cripple the package manager. If removing python cripples the package manager, then warn the user. It's quite simple. Adding python to the system set is messy, as pointed out, but somehow there must be a way to determine that python is needed by the package manager. The last remaining option (without adding any new features) is to track on which packages are required by the system set and warning about removing any packages required by any package in the system set. This seems like a good solution. I could also argue that using "emerge -C" period is dangerous, as some here have mentioned. As far as I can tell, the best way to remove a package is to edit the package out of /var/lib/portage/world file and then letting portage safely remove packages via "--depclean". (This is outside the current topic, of course, so if anyone wants to seriously propose this it should be re-posted under a new subject heading.) Well put. I would agree that a simple warning should be given before removing a system package or a package that system must have, especially portage. Maybe what portage needs is a reverse -n feature. Instead of adding something to the world file, it removes a unwanted package from the world file and then the user could use --depclean to remove that package and its no longer needed friends. I assume this is doable. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 19:02, Dale wrote: > Since unmerging python results in a broken system, I'm not sure how this > "pollutes" anything. The system set is to maintain a working and bootable > system that can install packages and portage requires python to work. What > good is a Gentoo system without a working package manager? There are two issues here: * Avoiding hacks for deciding which packages are needed for system * Helping users avoid the dangerous mistake of crippling the package manager. Here's how I see this break down. To avoid crippling the package manager, the user must be warned of an action that will cripple the package manager. If removing python cripples the package manager, then warn the user. It's quite simple. Adding python to the system set is messy, as pointed out, but somehow there must be a way to determine that python is needed by the package manager. The last remaining option (without adding any new features) is to track on which packages are required by the system set and warning about removing any packages required by any package in the system set. This seems like a good solution. I could also argue that using "emerge -C" period is dangerous, as some here have mentioned. As far as I can tell, the best way to remove a package is to edit the package out of /var/lib/portage/world file and then letting portage safely remove packages via "--depclean". (This is outside the current topic, of course, so if anyone wants to seriously propose this it should be re-posted under a new subject heading.) -- Jacob "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." Are you ready?
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Petteri Räty wrote: On 01/24/2010 08:20 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: 2010/1/24 Petteri Räty : On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: You can't have functioning package management without the hard dependencies it requires. So both portage and python should be in the system set. Why should we keep redundant information in the list? How is that redundant? Cheers, The problem the original poster wanted to solve is having a warning when trying to unmerge something in "system". The best way here is to file a Portage enhancement request and not pollute the profile system set marking. The purpose of the packages file is to describe what needs to be installed for a minimal system to work so it doesn't make sense to pollute it with implementation details. Regards, Petteri Since unmerging python results in a broken system, I'm not sure how this "pollutes" anything. The system set is to maintain a working and bootable system that can install packages and portage requires python to work. What good is a Gentoo system without a working package manager? Is there something that I am missing here? For me, system should include the things needed for booting and for the package manager to work. If it can't contain python then portage has a problem. As I pointed out in another reply, portage won't let you unmerge itself but it will let you unmerge a package that will render portage useless. If I can unmerge python then portage should just go ahead and let me unmerge portage itself too. At least it is easier to repair removing portage. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 01:20 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: 2010/1/24 Petteri Räty: On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: Why should we keep redundant information in the list? How is that redundant? Well, I doubt we'll get away from python in the system set anytime soon, but imagine the results of having a policy that anything that is a dependency of something in system needs to be in system. Now the system set is three times larger than it is now. There is also no easy way to tell whether something is in the set simply because it is a dependency. Then in the future if something is no longer a dependency it will be installed on every gentoo system unnecessarily. Sure, we can clean things up every once in a while, and maybe even automate that, but what would be the point. The whole reason we have dependency management in our package managers is so that you don't have to worry about details like what package requires what. Package managers shouldn't make it trivial to accidentally remove a dependency in an unsafe manner Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On Sunday 24 January 2010 00:12:39 Benny Pedersen wrote: > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does > not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host sounds a bug that should be filed so it can be fixed -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 08:20 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > 2010/1/24 Petteri Räty : >> On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> You can't have functioning package management without the hard >>> dependencies it requires. So both portage and python should be in the >>> system set. >> >> Why should we keep redundant information in the list? > > How is that redundant? > > Cheers, The problem the original poster wanted to solve is having a warning when trying to unmerge something in "system". The best way here is to file a Portage enhancement request and not pollute the profile system set marking. The purpose of the packages file is to describe what needs to be installed for a minimal system to work so it doesn't make sense to pollute it with implementation details. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
2010/1/24 Petteri Räty : > On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> You can't have functioning package management without the hard >> dependencies it requires. So both portage and python should be in the >> system set. > > Why should we keep redundant information in the list? How is that redundant? Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 03:02 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > 2010/1/24 Petteri Räty : >> The meaning of the system set is to have only the packages directly >> required to have a minimal functioning system. Having python by itself >> is not a requirement for that but having package management is. > > You can't have functioning package management without the hard > dependencies it requires. So both portage and python should be in the > system set. > > Cheers, Why should we keep redundant information in the list? Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
Arttu V. wrote: On 1/24/10, Benny Pedersen wrote: should not be marked as system ? it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really seems so important ? Nearly identical question was mulled over in a discussion last spring over at gentoo-user list. Scan for "ARGH I uninstalled python" in the archives if you are interested. IIRC there was a suggestion to make the system set dynamically grow to contain all of the required dependencies of the packages explicitly listed in the system set, but I'm not sure if it went anywhere. Anyways, the current contents of @system cause all kinds of surprises, for example to FEATURES="buildsyspkg" users who rely on the feature without realizing how small (and even "incomplete") @system actually is. I just picked a random reply here. My $0.02 worth. If I try to remove portage itself, I get this: r...@smoker / # emerge -Ca portage >>> These are the packages that would be unmerged: * Not unmerging package sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc61 since there is no valid * reason for portage to unmerge itself. >>> No packages selected for removal by unmerge r...@smoker / # It appears you can't even remove portage at all. Now call me silly, couldn't it be said that removing something that would prevent the package manager from working constitute a little warning? After all, most likely the person is not thinking clearly that day and most likely doesn't REALLY want to do this. Is there not a way to at the very least post a warning and then ask a 'are you sure' question like it does with the -a option? It's just that as a newbie ages ago, I did this too. I didn't realize that it was a nasty boo boo until afterwards. < dale crawls back under his rock > Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
2010/1/24 Petteri Räty : > The meaning of the system set is to have only the packages directly > required to have a minimal functioning system. Having python by itself > is not a requirement for that but having package management is. You can't have functioning package management without the hard dependencies it requires. So both portage and python should be in the system set. Cheers, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc) __
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 1/24/10, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > should not be marked as system ? > > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does > not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host > > my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really > seems so important ? Nearly identical question was mulled over in a discussion last spring over at gentoo-user list. Scan for "ARGH I uninstalled python" in the archives if you are interested. IIRC there was a suggestion to make the system set dynamically grow to contain all of the required dependencies of the packages explicitly listed in the system set, but I'm not sure if it went anywhere. Anyways, the current contents of @system cause all kinds of surprises, for example to FEATURES="buildsyspkg" users who rely on the feature without realizing how small (and even "incomplete") @system actually is. -- Arttu V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 07:12 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > should not be marked as system ? > > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does > not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host > > my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really > seems so important ? > The meaning of the system set is to have only the packages directly required to have a minimal functioning system. Having python by itself is not a requirement for that but having package management is. As a consequence python gets pulled in by portage. We could have a separate list for packages for which the PM should tell the user that he's an idiot of course but the best thing is to educate users that emerge -C is dangerous. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
On 01/24/2010 07:12 AM, Benny Pedersen wrote: > > should not be marked as system ? > > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does > not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host > > my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really > seems so important ? > Removing packages with emerge -C is always potentially dangerous. The recommended tool these days is emerge --depclean. emerge -C really only comes to use with blockers and then maintainers should design the upgrade paths so that you don't need to remove anything that breaks things. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -C eselect-python disaster
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Benny Pedersen wrote: > it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from > /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage > does not work after this, It's a run-time dependency of python, so what did you expect? > my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really > seems so important ? Python itself is not in the system set, so why should the eselect module be? Ulrich
