[gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Andrew Gaffney]

When portage goes to unmerge a package, it checks that the modification 
time is the same on each file as when it was installed, correct? If so, 
what if 2 packages install the same file. If the 2nd one installed is 
unmerged, will it delete the shared files?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Cedric Veilleux]

I think there is a policy that 2 packages can't share the same files. It it 
happens, it is considered as a bug.. 



Le 26 Août 2003 18:58, Andrew Gaffney a écrit :
> When portage goes to unmerge a package, it checks that the modification
> time is the same on each file as when it was installed, correct? If so,
> what if 2 packages install the same file. If the 2nd one installed is
> unmerged, will it delete the shared files?


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Andrew Gaffney]

But, if this *bug* were to happen and 2 packages installed the same 
file, would the file get deleted if the most recently installed packages 
got unmerged?

Cedric Veilleux wrote:
> I think there is a policy that 2 packages can't share the same files. It it 
> happens, it is considered as a bug.. 
> 
>>When portage goes to unmerge a package, it checks that the modification
>>time is the same on each file as when it was installed, correct? If so,
>>what if 2 packages install the same file. If the 2nd one installed is
>>unmerged, will it delete the shared files?

-- 
Andrew Gaffney


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 798 bytes --]

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 12:14 am, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> But, if this *bug* were to happen and 2 packages installed the same
> file, would the file get deleted if the most recently installed packages
> got unmerged?

Don't guess - try it and find out.  Make local ebuilds that harmlessly create 
the problem.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
Beta packages for download            http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/packages/
Come and meet me in March 2004                 http://www.phparch.com/cruise/

GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Georgi Georgiev]

On 26/08/2003 at 18:14:00(-0500), Andrew Gaffney used 0.6K just to say:
> But, if this *bug* were to happen and 2 packages installed the same 
> file, would the file get deleted if the most recently installed packages 
> got unmerged?

Yes, if this "bug" were to happen, and 2 packages installed the same file, the
file would get deleted if the most recently installed package got unmerged.

-- 
()   Georgi Georgiev   () Windows: an Unrecoverable Acquisition Error! ()
()    chutz@gg3.net    ()                                              ()
()  +81(90)6266-1163   ()                                              ()

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Michael Cummings]

You mean like: 

mcummings@enki mcummings $ sudo qpkg -f /bin/ping
net-misc/iputils *
sys-apps/netkit-base *


=:)


On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 07:02:03PM -0400, Cedric Veilleux wrote:
> I think there is a policy that 2 packages can't share the same files. It it 
> happens, it is considered as a bug.. 
> 
> 
> 
> Le 26 Ao?t 2003 18:58, Andrew Gaffney a ?crit :
> > When portage goes to unmerge a package, it checks that the modification
> > time is the same on each file as when it was installed, correct? If so,
> > what if 2 packages install the same file. If the 2nd one installed is
> > unmerged, will it delete the shared files?
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 


-----o()o---------------------------------------------
              |  http://www.gentoo.org/
              |  #gentoo-dev  on irc.freenode.net
Gentoo Dev    |  #gentoo-perl on irc.freenode.net
Perl Guy      |
              |  GnuPG Key ID:       AB5CED4E9E7F4E2E
-----o()o---------------------------------------------


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Jon Portnoy]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:08:37PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> You mean like: 
> 
> mcummings@enki mcummings $ sudo qpkg -f /bin/ping
> net-misc/iputils *
> sys-apps/netkit-base *
> 

The netkit-base ebuild no longer provides ping (iputils provides a much 
better ping)

If you're using -r8, only iputils should be providing ping...

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Michael Cummings]

I think the point is, why do they not block each other? Shouldn't they?

Not that this is part of the original thread :)


On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:15:35PM -0400, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:08:37PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > You mean like: 
> > 
> > mcummings@enki mcummings $ sudo qpkg -f /bin/ping
> > net-misc/iputils *
> > sys-apps/netkit-base *
> > 
> 
> The netkit-base ebuild no longer provides ping (iputils provides a much 
> better ping)
> 
> If you're using -r8, only iputils should be providing ping...
> 
> -- 
> Jon Portnoy
> avenj/irc.freenode.net
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 

-- 


-----o()o---------------------------------------------
              |  http://www.gentoo.org/
              |  #gentoo-dev  on irc.freenode.net
Gentoo Dev    |  #gentoo-perl on irc.freenode.net
Perl Guy      |
              |  GnuPG Key ID:       AB5CED4E9E7F4E2E
-----o()o---------------------------------------------


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Jon Portnoy]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> I think the point is, why do they not block each other? Shouldn't they?
> 
> Not that this is part of the original thread :)
> 
> 

Why should they? netkit-base is a package that happens to provide 
ping among other utilities; because all of them except the old-style 
inetd are deprecated (old-style inetd is deprecated but some people 
still prefer it, for whatever reason). It no longer provides ping, just 
old-style inetd.

Block each other in what way? How do you know before getting to the 
merge stage that files might be conflicting?

The only real solution that I can see is preventing it from happening in 
the first place.

Here's something in the same vein:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18181

I guess we need to determine which package provides the best version of 
kill. In that case, it's not that much of a big deal because most people 
are going to be using their shell's internal kill command anyway, 
though.

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Mikael Andersson]

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 02.37, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > I think the point is, why do they not block each other? Shouldn't they?
> >
> > Not that this is part of the original thread :)
>
> Why should they? netkit-base is a package that happens to provide
> ping among other utilities; because all of them except the old-style
> inetd are deprecated (old-style inetd is deprecated but some people
> still prefer it, for whatever reason). It no longer provides ping, just
> old-style inetd.
>
> Block each other in what way? How do you know before getting to the
> merge stage that files might be conflicting?
>

I agree that we can't block them because we don't know _before_ the merge 
stage. But at the merge stage it should be posssible to check if the files 
are included in another (already installed) ebuild. This would of course 
require that such information is present in a way that it can be done 
reasonably fast. My suggestion is to present this
as a warning/information to the user. For example by outputting the relevant 
merge line (<<<) with ewarn. 
But more important is to record these conflict so that portage can issue a 
warning before an unmerge that package-such-and-such will be broken and need 
to be rebuild.


> The only real solution that I can see is preventing it from happening in
> the first place.
>
> Here's something in the same vein:
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18181
>
> I guess we need to determine which package provides the best version of
> kill. In that case, it's not that much of a big deal because most people
> are going to be using their shell's internal kill command anyway,
> though.

I think both ways are good. One way to detect conflicts and then work with 
ebuilds/blocking etc to resolve them more permanently.


/Mikael Andersson


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 27 August 2003 17:27, Mikael Andersson wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 August 2003 02.37, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 08:32:02PM -0400, Michael Cummings wrote:
> > > I think the point is, why do they not block each other? Shouldn't they?
> > >
> > > Not that this is part of the original thread :)
> >
> > Why should they? netkit-base is a package that happens to provide
> > ping among other utilities; because all of them except the old-style
> > inetd are deprecated (old-style inetd is deprecated but some people
> > still prefer it, for whatever reason). It no longer provides ping, just
> > old-style inetd.
> >
> > Block each other in what way? How do you know before getting to the
> > merge stage that files might be conflicting?
>
> I agree that we can't block them because we don't know _before_ the merge
> stage. But at the merge stage it should be posssible to check if the files
> are included in another (already installed) ebuild. This would of course
> require that such information is present in a way that it can be done
> reasonably fast. My suggestion is to present this
> as a warning/information to the user. For example by outputting the
> relevant merge line (<<<) with ewarn.
> But more important is to record these conflict so that portage can issue a
> warning before an unmerge that package-such-and-such will be broken and
> need to be rebuild.

Checking if files are already included in another ebuild is good, but I would 
suggest backing up the existing file instead of overwriting it.That way it 
could just be restored on an unmerge rather than rebuilding the entire 
package. Perhaps a generic chooser tool as well? Something along the lines of 
opengl-update?

Regards,
Jason

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Rajiv Aaron Manglani]

>The netkit-base ebuild no longer provides ping (iputils provides a much
>better ping)

how about this one:

$ qpkg -f /etc/mailcap
net-mail/mailbase *
net-mail/pine *


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:24:37 -0400
Rajiv Aaron Manglani <rajiv@gentoo.org> wrote:

> >The netkit-base ebuild no longer provides ping (iputils provides a
> >much better ping)
> 
> how about this one:
> 
> $ qpkg -f /etc/mailcap
> net-mail/mailbase *
> net-mail/pine *
> 
 
I also want to play :)

for f in $( find /var/db/pkg -name "CONTENTS" -exec cat {} \; | awk
'/^obj/ { print $2 " " $3 }' | grep -v "^/var" | sort | uniq | awk '{
print $1 }' | uniq -d ) ; do echo "--- ${f}:" ; qpkg -nc -f -I -v ${f} ;
echo ; done 

Basically, it will list files that have several owners registered in the
packages db. The result were really huge here (but the box is 18 months
old, with regular deep updates). Here is a summary:

 * Slot duplicates: 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but imho too versions of a package in different
slots should not share files. If they do, then your system will start to
depend on the order in which you have made installations/updates (which
is already somehow true because of libs, but only concerns those that
are not important enough to be deps, whereas here it may overide some
explicit user choices). And if at some point portage allows in slots
updates, results may be very bizarre on some machine. 

 - The biggest part of my duplicates are because of old unslotted
packages that were never cleaned by portage. This was easy to clean up
(I've written a small script to force empty slot to same value as the
smallest greater version of the package. May not be perfect, but
saved some time.)

 - Another part is because of funky packages reslotting between similar
versions (like "2.0" -> "2"), this kind of things. Don't take me wrong,
I understand that devs sometimes want to polish their ebuilds, but I
also think new slots should only be introduced when it is really
necessary. As I don't like to see all this outdated things in my pkg db,
I've made some manual clean here. 

 - Then come what I would call real slotting bug: linux-headers is one
(see bug #26460), but I've also seen also at least bug-buddy, guile,
and orbit2 which use different slots whereas some files at a same
location.


 * Real packages duplicates:

Good news, there is big issue on my list:

 - openmotif vs. lesstif: a well known one. Almost all files are in both
packages. I would vote for a mutual exclusion, because it doesn't
makes sense to have both installed (one breaks the other). And in case
of updates, the user will sometimes get lesstif, sometimes openmotif...
(and don't ask why both where installed on my system, I have no idea)

 - net-analyzer/net-snmp-5.0.8 vs. net-analyzer/ucd-snmp-4.2.6-r1 
(virtual/snmp): Same here. Shouldn't they be mutual exclusive?

 - net-mail/mailbase-0.00-r6 vs. net-p2p/bittorrent-3.2.1b-r4 on
/etc/mailcap: This mailcap stuff really seems popular... Would be
nice to have only one package (mailbase?) which provides it, and the
others (bittorrent an pine) depends on it.

 - sys-apps/coreutils-5.0-r2 vs. sys-apps/shadow-4.0.3-r7 on /bin/groups
 (is it supposed to be the same program in both
packages?)

 - dev-tcltk/expect-5.37.1-r1 vs. net-misc/whois-4.6.6-r2 on
/usr/bin/mkpasswd (same question)

 - sys-apps/coreutils-5.0-r2 vs. sys-apps/procps-3.1.11 vs.
sys-apps/util-linux-2.12 on /bin/kill (already discussed)

 - sys-devel/gcc-2.95.3-r8 vs. sys-devel/gcc-config-1.3.3-r1 on
/lib/cpp. I guess it's well intentional?

 - app-admin/etcat-0.1 vs. app-portage/gentoolkit-0.1.30: couldn't the
separate package (etcat) be removed?

 - app-text/html-xml-utils-2.3-r1 vs. media-sound/normalize-0.7.6-r1 on
/usr/bin/normalize: Doh! I guess this two ones are not that related... I
think this one is really a bug, I will submit it.

 - several perl modules vs. perl-5.8: I guess it's normal.

 - dev-libs/libusb-0.1.7 vs. sys-apps/usbutils-0.11-r1 on
/usr/lib/libusb.la

 - dev-python/gnome-python-1.4.4 vs. dev-python/pygtk-1.99.17 
(Could be an issue, since both packages are used by some apps. But I've
not checked if the files were supposed to be really different or just
duplicates of the same code.)

 - sys-devel/binutils-2.14.90.0.6-r1 vs. sys-devel/gdb-5.3 on some info
files (Who cares?...)

 - lots of duplicates on manpages, mainly coreutils vs. the rest of the
world (Again, not a real issue)



And that's all, this mail is long enough, I don't have a conclusion :)

-- 
TGL.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Jon Portnoy]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:11:24AM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Good news, there is big issue on my list:
> 
>  - openmotif vs. lesstif: a well known one. Almost all files are in both
> packages. I would vote for a mutual exclusion, because it doesn't
> makes sense to have both installed (one breaks the other). And in case
> of updates, the user will sometimes get lesstif, sometimes openmotif...
> (and don't ask why both where installed on my system, I have no idea)

Er, they already block each other and dependencies should be on 
virtual/motif...

>  - sys-apps/coreutils-5.0-r2 vs. sys-apps/shadow-4.0.3-r7 on /bin/groups
>  (is it supposed to be the same program in both
> packages?)
> 
>  - dev-tcltk/expect-5.37.1-r1 vs. net-misc/whois-4.6.6-r2 on
> /usr/bin/mkpasswd (same question)
> 

Both of these are probably just about the same; functionally speaking, 
they're extremely basic applications.

>  - app-admin/etcat-0.1 vs. app-portage/gentoolkit-0.1.30: couldn't the
> separate package (etcat) be removed?
> 

Already is.-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:27:35 -0400
Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> wrote:
 
> Er, they already block each other and dependencies should be on 
> virtual/motif...

I know for the virtual, but I confirm they don't block each other:

  thomas@gromit thomas $ emerge -pv openmotif lesstif
  These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
  Calculating dependencies ...done!
  [ebuild   R   ] x11-libs/openmotif-2.2.2-r2
  [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/lesstif-0.93.40

A nice way to not forget this kind of block would be if portage was able
to distinguish between virtuals that may accept several providers and
those that can accept only exactly one. 

-- 
TGL.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] uninstalling packages with portage

[Jon Portnoy]

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:53:44AM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 03:27:35 -0400
> Jon Portnoy <avenj@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  
> > Er, they already block each other and dependencies should be on 
> > virtual/motif...
> 
> I know for the virtual, but I confirm they don't block each other:
> 
>   thomas@gromit thomas $ emerge -pv openmotif lesstif
>   These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
>   Calculating dependencies ...done!
>   [ebuild   R   ] x11-libs/openmotif-2.2.2-r2
>   [ebuild  N    ] x11-libs/lesstif-0.93.40
> 

Ah, crap. You're right.

I'm pretty sure they used to block. What happened?

(poke @ raker)

> A nice way to not forget this kind of block would be if portage was able
> to distinguish between virtuals that may accept several providers and
> those that can accept only exactly one. 
> 

We handle this in the ebuilds in DEPEND (by using !).

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list