[gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Michael Marineau]

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

I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.

First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a ~mask) and
it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because of the
masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the package,
but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense to me
that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.

Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if a
package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another the user
will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that package to,
even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this the user
must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make more
sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another portage
overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also avoid
any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then removed from
portage in favor of a newer version.

- --
Michael Marineau
marineam@engr.orst.edu
Oregon State University
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAZ8XiP+LossGzjARAtEnAKDAzLbSJkL64rUZKro2vr7jJ8BFvgCfckVT
cBVQ4B93E00kfBLx1hFz/E0=
=iDdF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Michael Marineau]

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

Michael Marineau wrote:
| I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
oops, typo.  *how* portage handles masked packages.
|
| First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a
| ~mask) and
| it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because
| of the
| masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the
| package,
| but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
| Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
| installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense
| to me
| that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
|
| Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if a
| package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another
| the user
| will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that
| package to,
| even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this
| the user
| must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make
| more
| sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another
| portage
| overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also
| avoid
| any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then
| removed from
| portage in favor of a newer version.
|
| --
| Michael Marineau
| marineam@engr.orst.edu
| Oregon State University

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAaIpiP+LossGzjARAhebAKDEQYeGEfsEsgDBr66xLqHpeaeOiACgmGTx
pMKIi6cooDr7Rlr4euV10UE=
=hFrN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Daniel Ostrow]

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

Michael,

Unless I am mistaken this problem is completely solved by
/etc/portage/package.{mask,unmask,keyword} read man portage for info.

Daniel Ostrow
Operational Lead
Gentoo/macos

Michael Marineau wrote:
| Michael Marineau wrote:
| | I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
| oops, typo.  *how* portage handles masked packages.
| |
| | First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a
| | ~mask) and
| | it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because
| | of the
| | masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the
| | package,
| | but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
| | Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
| | installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense
| | to me
| | that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
| |
| | Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that
| if a
| | package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another
| | the user
| | will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that
| | package to,
| | even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this
| | the user
| | must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make
| | more
| | sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another
| | portage
| | overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also
| | avoid
| | any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then
| | removed from
| | portage in favor of a newer version.
| |
| | --
| | Michael Marineau
| | marineam@engr.orst.edu
| | Oregon State University
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBAcG4sb0gXCN8LgURAuFVAKCOTbvLjAmQQevOgv8BICcSN7GfrQCgw+1l
F2VoFuQFuLhO9fh19xXBEMc=
=EM9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Aaron Kulbe]

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

On Friday 23 July 2004 06:41 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
> Michael Marineau wrote:
> | I have a couple questions about why portage handles masked packages.
>
> oops, typo.  *how* portage handles masked packages.
>
> | First of all, when a specific masked package is emerged (usually a
> | ~mask) and
> | it is depended on by another package emerge -UD world will fail because
> | of the
> | masked dependency.  This can be avoided by specifically unmasking the
> | package,
> | but that can be a bit tedious if this situation is a common occurrence.
> | Failing seems the right thing to do if the masked package is not already
> | installed, but if the package is already installed it would make sense
> | to me
> | that portage realizes that the dependency is already met and not die.
> |
> | Another thought that I made a comment on in the GLEP 19 thread is that if
> | a package is removed from the portage tree, later when upgrading another
> | the user
> | will be forced to upgrade(or downgrade if upgrades are masked) that
> | package to,
> | even if they wanted to keep the existing version.  To get around this
> | the user
> | must save the old ebuild to their portage overly.  I think it would make
> | more
> | sense to let the existing set of installed packages behave as another
> | portage
> | overly so that it is easy to hold on existing packages.  This would also
> | avoid
> | any accidental downgrades if a package was ~arch masked, but then
> | removed from
> | portage in favor of a newer version.
> |
> | --
> | Michael Marineau
> | marineam@engr.orst.edu
> | Oregon State University

 man portage
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAciU86Mtr34uz40RAnEfAJ92pg5GHPKJmNonlIm2xa3K2qxMiwCgrzMC
SHijmj2wbA6rVLdnsPLJOk0=
=3w2P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Michael Marineau]

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

Daniel Ostrow wrote:
| Michael,
|
| Unless I am mistaken this problem is completely solved by
| /etc/portage/package.{mask,unmask,keyword} read man portage for info.
|
I know, but having to maintain such a list by hand seems like extra unnessicary
work.  Is there a particular reason why it is set up in this way?  It just
seems to me like recognizing the existing packages in the two situations I
previously mentioned would be a lot easier on the user.  My question isn't so
much how to solve it, but why is the solution is what it is.


- --
Michael Marineau
marineam@engr.orst.edu
Oregon State University
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAcy3iP+LossGzjARAslFAKDT2YGo0VIVIRLSZbKtnhnsrj1fnwCgpZ+B
vDMQk2wssOCKrDB17Ahao90=
=za34
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 23/07/2004-19:43:03(-0700): Michael Marineau types
> Daniel Ostrow wrote:
> | Michael,
> |
> | Unless I am mistaken this problem is completely solved by
> | /etc/portage/package.{mask,unmask,keyword} read man portage for info.
> |
> I know, but having to maintain such a list by hand seems like extra
> unnessicary work.

Add to that the speed penalty. Portage becomes a few times slower if you have
about 15-20 packages in package.keywords.

> Is there a particular reason why it is set up in this way?  It just
> seems to me like recognizing the existing packages in the two situations I
> previously mentioned would be a lot easier on the user.  My question isn't so
> much how to solve it, but why is the solution is what it is.

-- 
/    Georgi Georgiev   /  Cinemuck, n.: The combination of popcorn,    /
\     chutz@gg3.net    \  soda, and melted chocolate which covers      \
/   +81(90)6266-1163   /  the floors of movie theaters. -- Rich        /
\  ------------------- \  Hall, "Sniglets"                             \

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Carsten Lohrke]

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

On Saturday 24 July 2004 05:46, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > I know, but having to maintain such a list by hand seems like extra
> > unnessicary work.
>
> Add to that the speed penalty. Portage becomes a few times slower if you
> have about 15-20 packages in package.keywords.

Right, but I see no reason why there are no options like emerge 
- --set-use/--set-keywords (or another script that does this). Having to fiddle 
around with these files by hand is annoying.


Carsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAlsvVwbzmvGLSW8RAj4WAKCwDeRaTxMAYa+s38ou2nHv7Z+8VwCeOtdl
Uh0vTSYpzdQBDU8XOgp45Xc=
=8Phn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] A couple questions about portage.

[Georgi Georgiev]

maillog: 24/07/2004-14:50:47(+0200): Carsten Lohrke types
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Saturday 24 July 2004 05:46, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> > > I know, but having to maintain such a list by hand seems like extra
> > > unnessicary work.
> >
> > Add to that the speed penalty. Portage becomes a few times slower if you
> > have about 15-20 packages in package.keywords.
> 
> Right, but I see no reason why there are no options like emerge 
> - --set-use/--set-keywords (or another script that does this). Having to fiddle 
> around with these files by hand is annoying.

I agree. Plus packages get moved around or renamed quite often. Though this
could be accomplished with some other script that reads
$PORTDIR/profiles/updates. However, I believe that emerge should take care of
this on "sync".

-- 
/    Georgi Georgiev   /  "One day I woke up and discovered that I     /
\     chutz@gg3.net    \  was in love with tripe." -- Tom Anderson     \
/   +81(90)6266-1163   /                                               /

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list