Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-21 Thread Doug Goldstein

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Olivier Crête wrote:


On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
  
  

This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be
updated to contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.



Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me.
I though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.

  
  

Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one
of the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.



Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world updates
(there are still many cases where it will be included), but that's not
the only available operation in portage.

Marius
  
We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a machine 
that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want to upgrade 
either of those packages to the latest ~arch.




Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-21 Thread Marius Mauch
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:02:57 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Marius Mauch wrote:
  Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world
  updates (there are still many cases where it will be included), but
  that's not the only available operation in portage.
 
  Marius

 We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a
 machine that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want
 to upgrade either of those packages to the latest ~arch.
 
I know, but just because it did (not) happen in your case doesn't mean
it will be the same for everyone else.

Marius



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-21 Thread Doug Goldstein

Marius Mauch wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:02:57 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  

Marius Mauch wrote:


Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world
updates (there are still many cases where it will be included), but
that's not the only available operation in portage.

Marius
  
  

We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a
machine that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want
to upgrade either of those packages to the latest ~arch.



I know, but just because it did (not) happen in your case doesn't mean
it will be the same for everyone else.

Marius

  
Given the same package set and world file that I have, it will happen 
every time. Also specific variations of my package set and world file 
will result in the issue. Which means that it will occur for other 
people but no one ever said everyone.




Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-19 Thread Markus Rothe
Robert Bridge wrote:
 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
  '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
 
 Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Paludis has everything for updating all packages. Would that be an option
for portage, too?

I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything`

-markus

P.S.: where does that '@' come from?


pgpqvaed2lmAS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-19 Thread Alec Warner
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Robert Bridge wrote:
 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
  '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.

 Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

 Paludis has everything for updating all packages. Would that be an option
 for portage, too?

 I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything`

It exists as well...


 -markus

 P.S.: where does that '@' come from?


'@' denotes that the atom refers to a set and not any other kind of atom.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Doug Goldstein

Olivier Crête wrote:

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
  
This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.



Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.

  
Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.


[1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/virtual/libc
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
2008-07-18 16:01:28 Doug Goldstein napisał(a):
 Olivier Cr�te wrote:
  On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:

  This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
  address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
  contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
  RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
  
 
  Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
  though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
 

 Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
 the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.

IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify '@system' during
updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Richard Freeman

Doug Goldstein wrote:


  
Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.




Sure it will.  When the version of libc you have installed is removed 
from the portage tree you'll get bumped to the most recent version 
(stable/testing as appropriate).


Works fine for me.  I generally don't care if I'm running an older 
version of libc.  If something requires a particular version it will 
have a dependency and will pull it in.


--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Robert Bridge
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
 '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.

Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Rob.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
Doug Goldstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Olivier Crête wrote:
  On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:

  This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
  how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be
  updated to contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
  RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
  
 
  Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me.
  I though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
 

 Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one
 of the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.

Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world updates
(there are still many cases where it will be included), but that's not
the only available operation in portage.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-18 Thread Marius Mauch
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:24 +0100
Robert Bridge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
  '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
 
 Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Because that doesn't actually fix the problem, it just covers it up to
some degree (there has never been a guarantee that system is
actually satisifed when you install a package). Also the new solution is
more flexible as it still allows you to include system in world easily,
or update/rebuild system and world separately. And for a full system
updates there is a new target available that actually includes all
installed packages.
Yes, this is going to require some user reeducation, and yes, this will
take some time, but it isn't as dramatic as some people make it. The
whole implicit-system-dependency thing has never existed, it was
always a broken assumption that only didn't blow up badly because a) the
system target rarely changes b) most packages only depend on a tiny
part of system and c) most users actually do full system updates
regulary.
As soon as you want to install a package that actually implicitly
depends on something in system that isn't already installed the whole
thing breaks down.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list



Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-16 Thread Olivier Crête
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
 This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
 address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
 contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
 RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.

Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.

-- 
Olivier Crête
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gentoo Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

2008-07-14 Thread Doug Goldstein
With the new split in Portage where system set packages are not 
considered in an emerge -auDNv world unless something in world 
RDEPENDs on it brings about a few issues.


i.e. Portage implicitly has a run time dependency on app-arch/tar, 
app-arch/bzip2, app-arch/gzip, app-arch/lzma due to the fact that 
Portage will use these utilities when unpack is called inside of an 
ebuild. As such these are run time depends of Portage and need to be in 
RDEPEND (the same would technically be true for pkgcore and paludis, 
unless they use tar's support for those formats and then its up to tar 
to depend properly).


This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
RDEPEND=virtual/libc. C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.


If you're running Portage 2.2_rc1 on a system you can see if any 
packages have begun to slack behind on your system in the system set.


emerge -puv @system

You might notice packages in here that are used on a daily basis but are 
now no longer being updated.

--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list