Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 17:34:42 Tom Hendrikx wrote:


As for the issue with openrc:

=sys-apps/openrc-0.6.0-r1 depends on =sys-apps/sysvinit-2.87-r3, and
both are in ~arch. Unmask both, emerge them, run etc-update and be fine.



Portage's blocker list has historically been confusing and difficult for users
to parse. They often don't know what to do - how many posts like that have you
answered where the answer is simply "unmerge this, merge that, merge world"?


It makes sense to me, probably to you too, and not much sense to a large chunk
of gentoo userland. Latest portage fixes all that and makes it a non-issue.





Those messages stump me too. I'm sort of getting to where they make
sense but you have to think backward so that they do make sense. You
sort of have to start at the bottom of the list and work your way up.

I'm sure glad the latest portage takes care of most of that. I'm using
Portage 2.2_rc62 and I have not had any problems with it.


Dale

:-) :-)

Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 23:37:33 Philip Webb wrote:


100202 Alan McKinnon wrote:


The list of benefits from using latest unstable portage is very long.
Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't contaminate the system
with legions of other unstable $STUFF


So why has it continued to be marked 'unstable' for so long ?



I have no idea. You should ask Zac.

There's an entry in packages.mask about wanting user test feedback, that
doesn't say much. It especially says nothing about the quality of the stable
vs unstable code bases





I read on -dev that they want the older version tested more. I'm not
sure why since it seems most people have just unmasked the newer version
and moved on. It's not like the older version is better or anything. ;-)


In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their system,
that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see what
happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version you
have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out of
portage tho.


Dale

:-) :-)

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On Tuesday 02 February 2010 14:47:46 David Relson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 08:08:25 +0200
> >
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 02 February 2010 06:03:10 David Relson wrote:
> > > > G'day,
> > > >
> > > > I've been running baselayout-2 for several months and it's been
> > > > working fine AFAICT. Over the weekend I noticed that my USB thumb
> > > > drive is no longer automounting.
> > > >
> > > > This evening I ran "/etc/init.d/udev status" which reported:
> > > >
> > > > * status: stopped".
> > > >
> > > > Running "/etc/init.d/udev start" reported:
> > > >
> > > > * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2!
> > > > * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!.
> > > > * ERROR: udev failed to start
> > > >
> > > > The message occurs because /etc/init.d/udev checks for
> > > > /etc/init.d/sysfs, which is not present.
> > > >
> > > > Googling indicates that /etc/init.d/sysf comes from
> > > > sys-apps/openrc. I have openrc-0.3.0-r1 installed (from long
> > > > ago). openrc-0.6.0-r1 is available, though keyworded ~amd64.
> > > > Unmasking it and running "emerge -p ..." shows that sysvinit is a
> > > > blocker.
> > > >
> > > > Is it safe to delete sysvinit and emerge openrc-0.6.0-r1? Am I
> > > > likely to get myself into troubleif I do this? If so, how much and
> > > > how deep?
> > >
> > > very very very very deep trouble if you restart the machine and
> > > everything is not complete yet. Do not do that.
> > >
> > > all version of baselayout-2 are marked unstable and you likely have
> > > an old version of sysvinit that is not compatible with the ancient
> > > openrc you do have. That openrc is not in portage anymore.
> > >
> > > You should upgrade to the latest unstable portage (which supports
> > > automatically resolving blockers). You need baselayout, openrc and
> > > sysvinit as well as /etc/init.d/sysfs. I have none of these in world
> > > yet all are present.
> > >
> > > With the latest portage, try again and let portage figure out for
> > > itself what it wants to do.
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > Reply appreciated!
> >
> > I've been running unstable versions of portage for many months and
> > currently have 2.1.7.17, which _is_ the newest non-masked version.
>
> No, you completely misunderstand what stable, unstable and masked mean.
>
> You are using stable (and call it unstable which is wrong). What you call
> masked is actually called unstable. Masked is something else entirely.
>
> Do not confuse these terms. They have *exact* meaning.
>
> You need to keyword portage as ~ in packages.keywords to release portage-2.2,
> which is the version that supports automagic blocker resolution.

portage-2.2 *is* masked:

/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:
# Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> (05 Jan 2009)
# Portage 2.2 is masked due to known bugs in the
# package sets and preserve-libs features.

portage-2.1.7.17 is all you can get with package.keywords (and 2.1.7.16
without, at least on x86).

-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:

> In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
> Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
> system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
> what happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version
> you have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out
> of portage tho.

Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is not
compulsory.


--
Neil Bothwick

"Time is the best teacher....., unfortunately it kills all the students"

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 20:53:39 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Whereas willy-nilly mixing stable and unstable is normally condemned as a
> bad idea (with good reason), it generally considered OK with portage for
> the above reason. Portage is self-contained, unmasking it doesn't
> contaminate the system with legions of other unstable $STUFF

...with the one exception* of a couple of eselect packages, which hardly
counts anyway.

* Is "a couple" one or two? You decide.

--
Rgds
Peter.

Neil Bothwick wrote:

On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:


In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their

system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
what happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version
you have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out
of portage tho.



Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is not
compulsory.




It doesn't here. Someone else did the same thing a few weeks ago with
no warning or didn't mention seeing one at least. I've read where
others have done this too.


It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.


Dale

:-) :-)

On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:07:33 -0600, Dale wrote:

> > Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
> > doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
> > remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is
> > not compulsory.


> It doesn't here. Someone else did the same thing a few weeks ago with
> no warning or didn't mention seeing one at least. I've read where
> others have done this too.
have changed.
You're right. It used to do this if you tried to remove anything from
@system, but this appears to

> It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
> needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
> Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.

Portage is A package manager, but if you are using portage to remove
packages, it should be intelligent about removing its own dependencies.

Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are trying to
remove a package that is a dependency of anything in @world.


--
Neil Bothwick

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >> In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
> >> Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
> >> system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
> >> what happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version
> >> you have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out
> >> of portage tho.
> >
> > Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
> > doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
> > remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is not
> > compulsory.
>
> It doesn't here. Someone else did the same thing a few weeks ago with
> no warning or didn't mention seeing one at least. I've read where
> others have done this too.
>
> It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
> needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
> Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.


Portage is not the package manager for Gentoo. It is *A* package manager for
Gentoo.

Trying to assign it some special exalted status will always get you in trouble
when trying to understand why things are the way they are. The only special
thing about portage is that it carries officially supported status.


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:31:31 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
> > needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
> > Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.
>
> Portage is A package manager, but if you are using portage to remove
> packages, it should be intelligent about removing its own dependencies.
>
> Taken more globally, maybe portage should warn whenever you are trying to
> remove a package that is a dependency of anything in @world.

Could be useful if implemented with an off switch

Or leave it off by default, users can enable it in make.conf if they wish. I
often unmerge deps of things in world, but I know (usually) what I'm doing and
will follow up with a --deep later. Annoying "Are you sure?" "Are you REALLY
sure?" might make me switch to Ubuntu :-)



--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Alan McKinnon wrote:

On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote:


Neil Bothwick wrote:


On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote:


In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better.
Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their
system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see
what happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version
you have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out
of portage tho.


Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it
doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to
remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is not
compulsory.


It doesn't here. Someone else did the same thing a few weeks ago with
no warning or didn't mention seeing one at least. I've read where
others have done this too.

It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It
needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for
Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected.




Portage is not the package manager for Gentoo. It is *A* package manager for
Gentoo.


Trying to assign it some special exalted status will always get you in trouble
when trying to understand why things are the way they are. The only special
thing about portage is that it carries officially supported status.





That was my point. Someone else can make a package manager if they want
to but portage is the official Gentoo package manager. As far as I
know, portage has always been Gentoo's package manager. I been here
since 1.4 so while it is possible that I missed it but somewhat doubtful.


Dale

:-) :-)