Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
Thanks Dave On Sun, Feb 19, 2023, 05:31 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:09:54 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: > > > > It's bad enough depclean deleting the active kernel if you don't > > > watch out, without something deciding to install a non-existent > > > kernel and deleting the live one :-) > > > > I have my own hand-coded script that runs "emerge --pretend > > --depclean" and tweaks/filters the output into another script called > > "cleanscript". I've set it to filter out "gentoo-sources". I then > > inspect "cleanscript" before running it. And, oh yeah, depclean wants > > to remove nano. I had to "emerge -n nano" to protect it. > > You can add kernel sources to a set so they are never depcleaned > > % cat sets.conf > [kernels] > class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet > world-candidate = False > files = /usr/src > > Then emerge -n @kernels > > I do the same with gcc so I can keep the previous version > > [gcc] > class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet > world-candidate = False > files = /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin > > > -- > Neil Bothwick > > For security reasons, all text in this mail > is double-rot13 encrypted. >
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 23:09:54 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: > > It's bad enough depclean deleting the active kernel if you don't > > watch out, without something deciding to install a non-existent > > kernel and deleting the live one :-) > > I have my own hand-coded script that runs "emerge --pretend > --depclean" and tweaks/filters the output into another script called > "cleanscript". I've set it to filter out "gentoo-sources". I then > inspect "cleanscript" before running it. And, oh yeah, depclean wants > to remove nano. I had to "emerge -n nano" to protect it. You can add kernel sources to a set so they are never depcleaned % cat sets.conf [kernels] class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet world-candidate = False files = /usr/src Then emerge -n @kernels I do the same with gcc so I can keep the previous version [gcc] class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet world-candidate = False files = /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/gcc-bin -- Neil Bothwick For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. pgpKCqrC02a0u.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 07:20:37PM +, Wol wrote > what are they going to do about "eselect kernel set ..." then? > > It's bad enough depclean deleting the active kernel if you don't watch > out, without something deciding to install a non-existent kernel and > deleting the live one :-) I have my own hand-coded script that runs "emerge --pretend --depclean" and tweaks/filters the output into another script called "cleanscript". I've set it to filter out "gentoo-sources". I then inspect "cleanscript" before running it. And, oh yeah, depclean wants to remove nano. I had to "emerge -n nano" to protect it. -- I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe; Gopher, Netscape with frames, the first Browser Wars. Searching for pages with AltaVista, pop-up windows self-replicating, trying to uninstall RealPlayer. All those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain... time to die.
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
Hi, Wol writes: > On 15/02/2023 15:51, Daniel Frey wrote: >> On 2/15/23 06:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> On 2023-02-15 08:11:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but managed differently. >>> >>> Should be less, since you already have portage installed but not >>> necessarily eselect-whatever. >>> >> I didn't even know eselect-whatever was even an option until this >> post... It's not something I've ever used. >> It does (at least to me) make sense for the package manager to enforce these >> selections rather than some optional tool though. >> > what are they going to do about "eselect kernel set ..." then? > > It's bad enough depclean deleting the active kernel if you don't watch out, > without something deciding to install a non-existent kernel and deleting the > live one :-) This is part of the motivation behind the dist-kernel project. See: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Distribution_Kernel As an anecdote, I haven't thought about what my kernel and modules are doing in a very long time, and I use multiple out of tree modules. Happy hacking and have a great day. -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On 15/02/2023 15:51, Daniel Frey wrote: On 2/15/23 06:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 2023-02-15 08:11:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but managed differently. Should be less, since you already have portage installed but not necessarily eselect-whatever. I didn't even know eselect-whatever was even an option until this post... It's not something I've ever used. It does (at least to me) make sense for the package manager to enforce these selections rather than some optional tool though. what are they going to do about "eselect kernel set ..." then? It's bad enough depclean deleting the active kernel if you don't watch out, without something deciding to install a non-existent kernel and deleting the live one :-) Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On 2/15/23 06:10, Michael Orlitzky wrote: On 2023-02-15 08:11:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but managed differently. Should be less, since you already have portage installed but not necessarily eselect-whatever. I didn't even know eselect-whatever was even an option until this post... It's not something I've ever used. It does (at least to me) make sense for the package manager to enforce these selections rather than some optional tool though. Dan
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:10 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 2023-02-15 08:11:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > > If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more > > bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but > > managed differently. > > > > Should be less, since you already have portage installed but not > necessarily eselect-whatever. > The symlinks are all associated with packages as well, which means that when you uninstall things that will get rid of the symlinks as well. This is really just a best practice all-around. I have a Gentoo system I've been maintaining for a while and I occasionally find orphaned stuff poking around because of special cases of things that weren't managed by the package manager, and so when things were obsoleted they stuck around. The news is needed precisely because the migration involves having the package manager install a bunch of stuff over files not owned by any package. That triggers a warning, but only because the files were in a less than ideal state to start. Things like this and the new user/group packages also reduce the complexity of dependency management because they just turn everything into a package dependency. Less special cases. -- Rich
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On 2023-02-15 08:11:46, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more > bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but > managed differently. > Should be less, since you already have portage installed but not necessarily eselect-whatever.
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
Hi, "Walter Dnes" writes: > A whole bunch of busy-work for emerge, and nothing in the news item > indicates it's really necessary for the average user. Howsabout... It's definitely necessary. Those packages provide links for vital parts of the filesystem, like /bin/sh. Why do you want to remove them? If there's something we failed to consider when implementing app-alternatives, please let us know and we'll try to rectify the issue. > * manually zapping with "rm -rf /var/db/repos/gentoo/app-alternatives" > * and then include "app-alternatives" in the file pointed to by > PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS="--exclude-from=" > > Am I missing something obvious that would cause problems? Have a great day. -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 02:44:47 -0500, Walter Dnes wrote: > After thoroughly reading the docs at... > https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2022-12-27-alternatives-introduction.html > it looks like the hand of him-who-must-not-be-named. Rather than > provide special support for the 1% extreme edge cases, the remaining 99% > of regular users will be dragged through the change. More bloat; and > eselect is on the road to eventual deprecation. "Systems will be more robust and desired system configuration can be achieved using the package manager rather than manual steps outside of it." Sounds quite reasonable to me. As does being able to control everything from within Portage, with USE flags, rather than messing around with eselect. If, as you say, it will eventually replace eselect, there is no more bloat, just different bloat. It's still just a bunch of symlinks, but managed differently. -- Neil Bothwick Inland Revenue: We've got what it takes to take what you've got! pgpDu0Q1pEoZU.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:57:48PM -0500, Michael Cook wrote > On 2/14/23 20:47, Walter Dnes wrote: > > > >Am I missing something obvious that would cause problems? > > > You're missing a lot of manual busy work you would have to do > maintaining a package.provided since packages depend on stuff in > that category. After thoroughly reading the docs at... https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2022-12-27-alternatives-introduction.html it looks like the hand of him-who-must-not-be-named. Rather than provide special support for the 1% extreme edge cases, the remaining 99% of regular users will be dragged through the change. More bloat; and eselect is on the road to eventual deprecation. With that in mind, I don't really have any choice but to go along. I'll have to change my sig to include something about a fully functional linux on a 16 *MEGA*byte machine running X (Yes, I actually was doing that back in 2000)... sigh. -- I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe; Gopher, Netscape with frames, the first Browser Wars. Searching for pages with AltaVista, pop-up windows self-replicating, trying to uninstall RealPlayer. All those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain... time to die.
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
On 2/14/23 20:47, Walter Dnes wrote: A whole bunch of busy-work for emerge, and nothing in the news item indicates it's really necessary for the average user. Howsabout... * manually zapping with "rm -rf /var/db/repos/gentoo/app-alternatives" * and then include "app-alternatives" in the file pointed to by PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS="--exclude-from=" Am I missing something obvious that would cause problems? You're missing a lot of manual busy work you would have to do maintaining a package.provided since packages depend on stuff in that category.
Re: [gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
Dave On Tue, Feb 14, 2023, 20:47 Walter Dnes wrote: > A whole bunch of busy-work for emerge, and nothing in the news item > indicates it's really necessary for the average user. Howsabout... > > * manually zapping with "rm -rf /var/db/repos/gentoo/app-alternatives" > * and then include "app-alternatives" in the file pointed to by > PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS="--exclude-from=" > > Am I missing something obvious that would cause problems? > > -- > I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe; Gopher, Netscape with > frames, the first Browser Wars. Searching for pages with AltaVista, > pop-up windows self-replicating, trying to uninstall RealPlayer. All > those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain... time to die. > >
[gentoo-user] Is it OK to get rid of app-alternatives/* ?
A whole bunch of busy-work for emerge, and nothing in the news item indicates it's really necessary for the average user. Howsabout... * manually zapping with "rm -rf /var/db/repos/gentoo/app-alternatives" * and then include "app-alternatives" in the file pointed to by PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS="--exclude-from=" Am I missing something obvious that would cause problems? -- I've seen things, you people wouldn't believe; Gopher, Netscape with frames, the first Browser Wars. Searching for pages with AltaVista, pop-up windows self-replicating, trying to uninstall RealPlayer. All those moments, will be lost in time like tears in rain... time to die.
