[gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Dale
Hi, I ran eix-test-obsolete and cleaned up a lot of the things in the output. This one part, stumps me. Just what exactly is it trying to tell me? Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what? Output below. Thanks Dale :-) :-) [EMAIL PROTECTED] / # eix-test-obsolete

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Vaeth
Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what? Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked): The database is what is produced by update-eix, i.e. usually the portage tree and your overlays (and perhaps virtual overlays). So, as a rule, it means that you have at

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked): As it says this apps are either not in the database or masked. kde-base/kdeaddons-docs-konq-plugins-3.5.9 masked kde-base/kdeaddons-kfile-plugins-3.5.9 masked kde-base/kdeaddons-meta-3.5.9 masked

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Dale
Vaeth wrote: Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what? Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked): The database is what is produced by update-eix, i.e. usually the portage tree and your overlays (and perhaps virtual overlays). So, as a rule, it means

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Dale
Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked): As it says this apps are either not in the database or masked. kde-base/kdeaddons-docs-konq-plugins-3.5.9 masked kde-base/kdeaddons-kfile-plugins-3.5.9 masked kde-base/kdeaddons-meta-3.5.9 masked

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
emerge -uNDvp world comes out clean. Hmm. I just commented an entry in package keywords and after that it showed up the same way as reported it. If i run portage it wants to downgrade that particular package. I can not find gentoo-sources-2.6.23-r3 in any file in /etc/portage/package.* so

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Dale
Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Btw: eix-test-obsolete can not check for obsolete use-flags at the moment? Regards, Daniel If it did check USE flags, I'd have a lng list there too. This is a 5 year old install. I try to keep it tidy but it does creep up on me. Dale :-) :-) --

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: But what is the difference between a redundant entry and an uninstalled entry. As far as I see the matching criteria of both checks is a package which is not installed or in the database but in a package.* file. Redundant is

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Neil Bothwick schrieb: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: But what is the difference between a redundant entry and an uninstalled entry. As far as I see the matching criteria of both checks is a package which is not installed or in the database but in a package.*

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Dale
Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Thanks! I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already one i miss? Regards, Daniel I wouldn't mind having one that cleans out /etc as a whole. I'm sure there are some

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Vaeth
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Redundant is where the package is still available but the /etc/portage.* entry is no longer needed. e.g. you have dev-lib/foobar-1.1 ~x86 in package.keyworkd but it is now stable. Sounds reasonable,

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Dale schrieb: Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Thanks! I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already one i miss? Regards, Daniel I wouldn't mind having one that cleans out /etc as a whole. I'm sure

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Vaeth
Dale wrote: Vaeth wrote: Is this not in portage, not in the world file or what? Installed packages with a version not in the database (or masked): Also, emerge -uvDNp comes out clean. Nothing to upgrade or downgrade. Revdep-rebuild comes out clean as well. The installed packages

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Daniel Pielmeier
Vaeth schrieb: Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:02:38 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Redundant is where the package is still available but the /etc/portage.* entry is no longer needed. e.g. you have dev-lib/foobar-1.1 ~x86 in package.keyworkd but it is now stable. Sounds

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:36:07 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: flagedit will warn if you have obsolete flags in /etc/portage or /etc/make.conf. I wonder when there will be one single tool which is capable to take care of a configuration and cleaning /etc/portage/ or is there already one i

Re: [gentoo-user] Question about eix-test-obsolete output

2008-04-13 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:25:52 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: This is all doable until now but I have about six different tools which do their job more or less reliable to achieve all this. Having separate tools has the advantage that it is possible to improve or replace individual ones, such