[gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.

-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 433 bytes --]

On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.

Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this could have been 
answered on -user too.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:57:00 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:

> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
>> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
>> default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
> 
> Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this could have been
> answered on -user too.
> 
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml

That gwn was from January! I would not have remembered that. Yes, it could
have been answered on -user. I felt this was the proper place to raise
this query.

-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:57 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
> > All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> > that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> > use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
> 
> Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this could have been 
> answered on -user too.
> 
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml

Nevermind... ;]

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
> > All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> > that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
> > default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
>
> Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this could have been
> answered on -user too.
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml

As far as I can see this is not mentioned in either this weeks GWN [1], the
portage 2.1 release notes [2] or the 2.1 news page [3]. I'm sure a lot of
people running stable don't remember the GWN from January. Shouldn't this be
mentioned somewhere now?

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060612-newsletter.xml
[2] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
[3] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/NEWS?view=markup

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:

> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>> > All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
>> > that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
>> > default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
>>
>> Look at the first section of [1]. Just so you know it this could have
>> been answered on -user too.
>>
>> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml
> 
> As far as I can see this is not mentioned in either this weeks GWN [1],
> the portage 2.1 release notes [2] or the 2.1 news page [3]. I'm sure a lot
> of people running stable don't remember the GWN from January. Shouldn't
> this be mentioned somewhere now?
> 
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060612-newsletter.xml [2]
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/RELEASE-NOTES?view=markup
> [3]
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage/main/trunk/NEWS?view=markup

And, from a user pov, these changes are difficult to assess. It is not
obvious what removing mysql, or db, or idn, or gmp might mean, especially
if the user never put them there in the first place! And, how to you
explain that openoffice-bin now has -java instead of java? Or, why gnupg
lost bzip2?

Too many things occurred without explanation. What _I_ ended up doing was
hacking make.conf and essentially put back all the changed -use flags
until I could examine this further.

Maybe this corrected an error from prior ebuilds or portage versions. But,
from where I sit, the cure seems worse than the original problem.

Thanks for researching this, Bo.
-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Duncan]

Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net> posted
pan.2006.06.13.16.57.04.370327@comcast.net, excerpted below, on  Tue, 13
Jun 2006 12:57:08 -0400:

> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> 
>> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>> On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>>> > All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of
>>> > ebuild that are replaced due to removed use flags.
>>>
>>> Look at the first section of[:]
>>> http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml
>> 
>> As far as I can see this is not mentioned in either this weeks GWN, the
>> portage 2.1 release notes or the 2.1 news page [references]. I'm sure a
>> lot of people running stable don't remember the GWN from January.
>> Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere now?

Valid point.  An informed Gentoo sysadmin is an effective Gentoo sysadmin.
Now sometimes I think Gentoo users (which are by another name Gentoo
sysadmins) shirk their responsibility to stay informed, but this wouldn't
seem to be one of those cases.  Sure, it was there in January, but
forget the folks who forgot, what about folks who started on Gentoo since
then?  The change should at a minimum be in the release notes.  Additional
coverage would be good, but a responsible admin will certainly read the
release notes for a non-micro upgrade of something as central to system
administration as a package manager, and as this is a non-trivial change,
it should at the very minimum be there.

Or put it this way.  If it was in the release notes and I failed to see
it, I'd consider it my problem (I get to keep the pieces, as  the saying
goes). If things start changing out from under me without notice despite my
reading of such documentation, the problem is with the package and its
documentation, and should be considered a bug.

(FWIW, as a responsible sysadmin, I dealt with the changes when they were
first covered, back in January, so I could rest easy that the changes when
they occurred in the portage I was using wouldn't cause any issues.  See
below.  However, as mentioned, that doesn't do a thing for the poor guy,
responsible or not, who started with Gentoo in February and is still
getting his Gentoo legs under him, only to see all this change without any
warning.)

> And, from a user pov, these changes are difficult to assess. It is not
> obvious what removing mysql, or db, or idn, or gmp might mean,
> especially if the user never put them there in the first place! And, how
> to you explain that openoffice-bin now has -java instead of java? Or,
> why gnupg lost bzip2?

Here I can't agree.  A responsible Gentoo admin will be verifying the USE
flags using --pretend or --ask before every package merge.  As such, (s)he
should be reasonably familiar with them.  Sure, (s)he may not know
specifically what each one does on every package that uses it, but he
should have no more trouble here than with the whole Gentoo concept and
use of USE flags in general.  Portage does a good job of flagging changed
flags in bright yellow.  If an admin isn't familiar with that particular
flag, a quick euse -i <flag> (euse is part of gentoolkit) will reveal both
its purpose, and whether it's a global or local USE flag (and if local,
how common its use is, global can be assumed to be quite commonly used
or it wouldn't be global). From there, it's the bog standard process of
deciding whether you want the flag on or off in make.conf, and dealing
with exceptions as they come up in package.use.  As I said, any
responsible Gentoo sysadmin (that is, Gentoo user by another name) should
be comfortable with this process.  If they aren't, there's the entirely
logical question of why they are using Gentoo in the first place.

> Too many things occurred without explanation.

Agreed.

> What _I_ ended up doing was hacking make.conf and essentially put back
> all the changed -use flags until I could examine this further.

Well, aside from the fact that a responsible sysadmin (well, if he had
been here since January to have read the coverage back then) would have
already verified his USE flags without the benefit of use.default  (I long
ago did a search on all such files in the tree, deleted the ones I knew
weren't going to be part of my profile, backed up the others, and did an
emerge --pretend --newuse to figure out what I needed to fix, then after
fixing them added them to the rsync-exclude list so syncs wouldn't be
bringing them back), what you did was basically what any sane Gentoo admin
would have done.  No big deal.  Dealing with USE flags, both with the
initial merge of the package, and when any change, is simply part of the
job.  IMO, a Gentoo admin unprepared to deal with that part of the job
should be asking himself serious questions about why he's using Gentoo in
the first place, and if another distribution wouldn't be better suited to
his wanting the distribution to make those decisions for him.  There are
certainly many distributions out there willing to do so, but part of
Gentoo's distinctness is that it places this power AND responsibility in
the hands of the individual Gentoo sysadmin (aka Gentoo user).  Someone
who doesn't want that... IMO shouldn't be using Gentoo, since that's part
of what /defines/ Gentoo.

> Maybe this corrected an error from prior ebuilds or portage versions.
> But, from where I sit, the cure seems worse than the original problem.

How so?  It's making Gentoo more Gentoo-like.  Taking a decision that
/was/ being made and changed arbitrarily based on what was merged, by the
distribution, and putting that decision back squarely in the hands of the
folks who have, by making the Gentoo choice in the first place, signified
that they WANT the choice of making that decision, AND the responsibility
for doing so.

As I've said, this absolutely should be in the release notes, and
preferably should be in other coverage of the  portage 2.1 changes as
well.  There is IMO no excuse for it not being there.  However, also
IMO, it shouldn't be a problem for any responsible Gentoo sysadmin, other
than asking the very reasonable question of why the change isn't covered
in the documentation.  Other than that, it's simply doing the bog-standard
coping with routine USE flag changes, only there's a few more of them to
deal with than "routine" in this case.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Alec Warner]

Duncan wrote:
> Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net> posted
> pan.2006.06.13.16.57.04.370327@comcast.net, excerpted below, on  Tue, 13
> Jun 2006 12:57:08 -0400:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:08:03 +0200, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Monday 12 June 2006 12:57, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Monday 12 June 2006 12:42, Peter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of
>>>>>ebuild that are replaced due to removed use flags.
>>>>
>>>>Look at the first section of[:]
>>>>http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml
>>>
>>>As far as I can see this is not mentioned in either this weeks GWN, the
>>>portage 2.1 release notes or the 2.1 news page [references]. I'm sure a
>>>lot of people running stable don't remember the GWN from January.
>>>Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere now?

>>Maybe this corrected an error from prior ebuilds or portage versions.
>>But, from where I sit, the cure seems worse than the original problem.
> 
> 
> How so?  It's making Gentoo more Gentoo-like.  Taking a decision that
> /was/ being made and changed arbitrarily based on what was merged, by the
> distribution, and putting that decision back squarely in the hands of the
> folks who have, by making the Gentoo choice in the first place, signified
> that they WANT the choice of making that decision, AND the responsibility
> for doing so.
> 
> As I've said, this absolutely should be in the release notes, and
> preferably should be in other coverage of the  portage 2.1 changes as
> well.  There is IMO no excuse for it not being there.  However, also
> IMO, it shouldn't be a problem for any responsible Gentoo sysadmin, other
> than asking the very reasonable question of why the change isn't covered
> in the documentation.  Other than that, it's simply doing the bog-standard
> coping with routine USE flag changes, only there's a few more of them to
> deal with than "routine" in this case.
> 
This was an oversight on our part.  I have added a snippet to the 
release notes:

For the lazy.
* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in 
make.defaults.  Users may still turn this back on by specifying 
USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf.  Interested in 
figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out 
/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files 
that correspond to your profile.

If I have some spare time I will add a FAQ question on the project page 
as well.  Once again I apologize for this.  It was actually done quite 
some time ago (January?) and no one ever added it and it was basically 
forgotten.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 319 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 09:42:48AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> I have added a snippet to the release notes: [..]

Thank you.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 836 bytes --]

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
> * autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
> make.defaults.  Users may still turn this back on by specifying
> USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf.  Interested in
> figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
> /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
> that correspond to your profile.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. use.defaults hasn't been 
deprecated. The January GWN [1] specified this much more clearly. Also 
checking out the use.defaults files won't tell you what was turned off unless 
you have an old version to diff it against. 'emerge -uvpDN world' will, 
however.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Alec Warner]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
> 
>>* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
>>make.defaults.  Users may still turn this back on by specifying
>>USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf.  Interested in
>>figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
>>/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
>>that correspond to your profile.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. use.defaults hasn't been 
> deprecated. The January GWN [1] specified this much more clearly. Also 
> checking out the use.defaults files won't tell you what was turned off unless 
> you have an old version to diff it against. 'emerge -uvpDN world' will, 
> however.

No, we didn't change the use.defaults files at all, they are the same 
and will stay the same for quite some time.  However we no longer add 
those use flags to the USE stack, ergo, look in use.defaults to see what 
could be affecting you.  I think people already know to use newuse to 
see use flag changes, but this tells them why there are changes.

> 
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/20060116-newsletter.xml
> 


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:59:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:

> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>> On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
>> 
>>>* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
>>>make.defaults.  Users may still turn this back on by specifying
>>>USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf.  Interested in
>>>figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
>>>/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
>>>that correspond to your profile.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. use.defaults hasn't
>> been deprecated. The January GWN [1] specified this much more clearly.
>> Also checking out the use.defaults files won't tell you what was turned
>> off unless you have an old version to diff it against. 'emerge -uvpDN
>> world' will, however.
> 
> No, we didn't change the use.defaults files at all, they are the same and
> will stay the same for quite some time.  However we no longer add those
> use flags to the USE stack, ergo, look in use.defaults to see what could
> be affecting you.  I think people already know to use newuse to see use
> flag changes, but this tells them why there are changes.
> 

The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base gives
you nothing to compare it against. Was there another file you meant?

-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Alec Warner]

Peter wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:59:12 -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> 
> 
>>Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday 14 June 2006 14:42, Alec Warner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>* autouse (use.defaults) has been deprecated by specifying USE_ORDER in
>>>>make.defaults.  Users may still turn this back on by specifying
>>>>USE_ORDER="env:pkg:conf:auto:defaults" in make.conf.  Interested in
>>>>figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
>>>>/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
>>>>that correspond to your profile.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. use.defaults hasn't
>>>been deprecated. The January GWN [1] specified this much more clearly.
>>>Also checking out the use.defaults files won't tell you what was turned
>>>off unless you have an old version to diff it against. 'emerge -uvpDN
>>>world' will, however.
>>
>>No, we didn't change the use.defaults files at all, they are the same and
>>will stay the same for quite some time.  However we no longer add those
>>use flags to the USE stack, ergo, look in use.defaults to see what could
>>be affecting you.  I think people already know to use newuse to see use
>>flag changes, but this tells them why there are changes.
>>
> 
> 
> The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base gives
> you nothing to compare it against. Was there another file you meant?
> 

There is no comparison, use.defaults IS the file.  Look at it.

USE Flag			package implies USE
--------			-------
aalib                           media-libs/aalib
acl                             sys-apps/acl
adns                            net-libs/adns
afs                             net-fs/openafs
alsa                            media-libs/alsa-lib
arts                            kde-base/arts
audiofile                       media-libs/audiofile
bash-completion         	app-shells/bash-completion

and so on.  If package is installed, the corresponding flag is turned on 
"automatically" hence autouse.  This no longer occurs in 2.1.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 465 bytes --]

On Wednesday 14 June 2006 18:40, Alec Warner wrote:
> There is no comparison, use.defaults IS the file.  Look at it.
>
[SNIP]
>
> and so on.  If package is installed, the corresponding flag is turned on
> "automatically" hence autouse.  This no longer occurs in 2.1.

Ah, now I get it. I didn't realize that. The FAQ question you mentioned on the 
project page would be a good idea, if you get the time. And thanks for adding 
it. :)

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Duncan]

Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net> posted
pan.2006.06.14.15.29.03.897668@comcast.net, excerpted below, on  Wed, 14
Jun 2006 11:29:06 -0400:

> The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base gives
> you nothing to compare it against. Was there another file you meant?

You don't /need/ another file to compare it against.  That you seem to
think you do implies you don't quite understand how the thing worked,
which explains why you don't see the problem with it.

use.defaults consists of a list of pairs of (normally unset, therefore off)
USE flags and packages.  If the corresponding package is merged and
defaults is in the USE.ORDER list, the flag will now default to on instead
of off.  (As it is normally last in the USE.ORDER list, specific settings
higher in the list, including those made by the user, will of course
override this, as one might expect.)

Thus, you don't need another file to compare use.defaults against, as if
the package triggering the USE flag is merged, the default is on, while if
it's not, the default is off.  Thus, there is no other file to compare it
against, only the list of your merged packages.  The use.defaults file(s)
simply list the packages that trigger the USE flags.  That's all.

The problem with this approach is that the USE flags end up changing
unexpectedly under a user's nose (sound familiar?  understand why that's a
problem?  THOUGHT so!) based on what's merged.  Note that USE flags are
only for OPTIONAL dependencies.  Thus, we have a scenario where a bunch of
packages with OPTIONAL dependencies on something, thus with it as a USE
flag, are merged, then something comes along with a NON-OPTIONAL
dependency on the same package and merges it.  Suddenly and without user
intervention, the USE flag changes from OFF by default to ON by default,
and all those previous packages merged with it off now show up in --newuse
to be remerged!

The most direct solution to the problem is to take defaults out of
USE.ORDER, so use.defaults is no longer factored in.  Altho there's going
to be a bit of initial pain for users who hadn't examined their use flags
(as I contend a responsible admin will have done), for new users and after
the initial adjustment by old users, USE flags will now actually be
normally deterministic -- they'll only change when a user changes them (or
when a profile has reason to do so, and that happens only for a very good
reason with existing profiles, so it would normally only happen when a
user changed his profile).  MUCH better, as the user doesn't have to worry
about USE flags changing out from underneath him.  Given your complaint
about the changes you experienced, I think you'll agree that having them
change out from underneath you isn't all that pleasant, so this is a
needed change.  The only problem was that it wasn't properly documented,
but that  has been taken care of now as well.



-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 19:47:42 +0000, Duncan wrote:

> Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net> posted
> pan.2006.06.14.15.29.03.897668@comcast.net, excerpted below, on  Wed, 14
> Jun 2006 11:29:06 -0400:
> 
>> The use.default file in default-linux is now empty. The one in base
>> gives you nothing to compare it against. Was there another file you
>> meant?
> 
> You don't /need/ another file to compare it against.  That you seem to
> think you do implies you don't quite understand how the thing worked,
> which explains why you don't see the problem with it.
> 

I responded to this sentence:
>>Interested in
>>figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
>>/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
>>that correspond to your profile.

I read that to mean "compare the base use.default with the other
use.defaults file and note the differences." It could also read "look at
the base use.default as well as the other use.default files." It was a
case of semantics and an ambiguously worded sentence, not my inability to
comprehend use.defaults.


> --
> Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program
> has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master."
> Richard Stallman

-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Duncan]

Peter <pete4abw@comcast.net> posted
pan.2006.06.14.20.11.26.154886@comcast.net, excerpted below, on  Wed, 14
Jun 2006 16:11:26 -0400:

> I responded to this sentence:
>>>Interested in
>>>figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
>>>/usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
>>>that correspond to your profile.
> 
> I read that to mean "compare the base use.default with the other
> use.defaults file and note the differences." It could also read "look at
> the base use.default as well as the other use.default files." It was a
> case of semantics and an ambiguously worded sentence, not my inability to
> comprehend use.defaults.

<light dawns>  Ooohhh, gotcha now!!  You are right, that /is/ a bit
ambiguous.  Obviously, neither I nor the author caught that.



-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alec Warner wrote:
> Interested in
> figuring out what use flags were turned off?  Check out
> /usr/portage/profiles/base/use.defaults and other use.defaults files
> that correspond to your profile.

It's probably easier to let portage do the work and run `env USE_ORDER=auto portageq envvar USE`.  On Sunday I added an einfo to the ebuild that recommends this.  I also posted the information in a forums thread:

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-3380763.html

Zac 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEkEGz/ejvha5XGaMRAnqOAKDqqAYYKCEtQJSVeOJoF06MlZRfYQCgk1oP
XTo2MZkiP+uIUPSm9j95OKk=
=GqK8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 06:42 -0400, Peter wrote:
> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the default
> use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.

Umm... What profile?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Did portage 2.1 change default use flags?

[Peter]

On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:23:42 -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 06:42 -0400, Peter wrote:
>> All of a sudden, emerge -uD --newuse world is showing dozens of ebuild
>> that are replaced due to removed use flags. Did someone change the
>> default use flags? Upgraded yesterday to portage 2.1.
> 
> Umm... What profile?

This was on me. I did not understand the impact of the default use vars.
Took a little kluding of make.conf and package.use. I do not feel like
changing things radically right now.

-- 
Peter


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list