[gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Armando Di Cianno]

Before I file a bug on repoman, I thought I'd toss this out there, and 
see what everyone thinks.  This problem I'm having is just about to 
drive me crazy, and, since I'd rather not ignore repoman, I'm not sure 
what to do.

My problem is chronicled here:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~fafhrd/whydoesrepomanhateme.html

... if anyone has a moment, _please_ read over that page, and smack me 
over the head (if need be) to point out what's wrong, or let me know 
if you're stumped to.

__Armando Di Cianno


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 952 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 17:40, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> Before I file a bug on repoman, I thought I'd toss this out there, and 
> see what everyone thinks.  This problem I'm having is just about to 
> drive me crazy, and, since I'd rather not ignore repoman, I'm not sure 
> what to do.
> 
> My problem is chronicled here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~fafhrd/whydoesrepomanhateme.html
> 
> ... if anyone has a moment, _please_ read over that page, and smack me 
> over the head (if need be) to point out what's wrong, or let me know 
> if you're stumped to.

It looks like you need to apply the virtuals to the non-stacked
profiles, also.  This would be something like the
default-x86-2004.2/virtuals file in each profile.

Yes, this is a PITA.

Yes, this is why we are moving to stacked profiles.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Tuesday 31 August 2004 23:40, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> ... if anyone has a moment, _please_ read over that page, and smack me
> over the head (if need be) to point out what's wrong, or let me know
> if you're stumped to.

Appreciated this "feature", too - repoman/portage.50 sux. :)


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 07:07, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 23:40, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> > ... if anyone has a moment, _please_ read over that page, and smack me
> > over the head (if need be) to point out what's wrong, or let me know
> > if you're stumped to.
>
> Appreciated this "feature", too - repoman/portage.50 sux. :)

Ermm...?

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 02:03, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> Ermm...?

I only wanted to say, that I faced the problem, too - w/o any virtuals 
involved iirc.


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Andrej Kacian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:07:54 +0200
Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 23:40, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> > ... if anyone has a moment, _please_ read over that page, and smack me
> > over the head (if need be) to point out what's wrong, or let me know
> > if you're stumped to.
> 
> Appreciated this "feature", too - repoman/portage.50 sux. :)

Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?

-- 
/~\ The ASCII        Andrej "Ticho" Kacian <ticho at gentoo dot org>
\ / Ribbon Campaign  GnuPG public key ID: 7CD93FE2 (pgp.mit.edu)
 X  Against HTML     Key fingerprint:
/ \ Email!           E87D 9DEF 2A23 6FFB 7AD9 542F 4253 3A46 7CD9 3FE2

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 278 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Carsten Lohrke]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?

I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)


Carsten

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 09:35 am, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> > Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?
>
> I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)

lets hope not all devs think this :P
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Luke-Jr]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 1:35 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> > Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?
>
> I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)

.51 also has many new features, IIRC. Maybe the reason isn't for testing, but 
because repoman .51 is now neccesary?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (portage 2.0.51_pre is good for the soul)

[Travis Tilley]

Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 1:35 pm, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> 
>>On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
>>
>>>Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?
>>
>>I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)
> 
> 
> .51 also has many new features, IIRC. Maybe the reason isn't for testing, but 
> because repoman .51 is now neccesary?

repoman is horribly broken for multi-arch deps if you're not using 
portage 2.0.51_pre last i checked. and until portage 2.0.50-r10 you 
needed to use 2.0.51_pre in order to have tar not (incorrectly) break 
the sandbox on ~amd64. also, when i went to make a cascading profile for 
amd64/gcc34-2004.2 i noticed that portage 2.0.50 hung when i specified a 
default virtual for (i think) ruby, while portage 2.0.51 handled it 
without problems (i had to delete the virtual for compatibility). 
ferringb and jstubbs are getting tired of my endless bug reports. ;)

i'm probably forgetting other stuff, but those were the most annoying 
for me personally. i'd definately vote for getting portage 2.0.51 out 
the door as soon as possible. that is, as soon as any release blocker 
bugs are fixed... anything else can really be fixed after it's release, 
IMHO. the bugs in .51 cant be much worse than .50. :/

i like 2.0.51. it's actually been less stressfull here, so i guess i 
would recommend it.


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 15:35, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 14:25, Andrej Kacian wrote:
> > Um, aren't devs supposed to run portage.51 ?
>
> I think, there are enough devs, who test it. No need to grill my box. ;)

The most recent releases behave quite well and the bugs have mainly gone out. 
(Except some erronous error messages)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 341 bytes --]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 21:27, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The most recent releases behave quite well and the bugs have mainly gone
> out. (Except some erronous error messages)

Thanks for your suasion. ;) Ran straight into a new .51 bug. Maybe a few more 
devs could add "userpriv" to FEATURES (when #62757 is fixed)?


Carsten

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Friday 03 September 2004 23:59, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 September 2004 21:27, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The most recent releases behave quite well and the bugs have mainly
> > gone out. (Except some erronous error messages)
>
> Thanks for your suasion. ;) Ran straight into a new .51 bug. Maybe a
> few more devs could add "userpriv" to FEATURES (when #62757 is fixed)?

I allways use userpriv (together with usersandbox), and I sometimes even 
encounter bugs that only manifest themselves when not using userpriv ;-).

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Jason Stubbs]

On Wednesday 01 September 2004 06:40, Armando Di Cianno wrote:
> Before I file a bug on repoman, I thought I'd toss this out there, and
> see what everyone thinks.  This problem I'm having is just about to
> drive me crazy, and, since I'd rather not ignore repoman, I'm not sure
> what to do.
>
> My problem is chronicled here:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~fafhrd/whydoesrepomanhateme.html

> Currently, in cvs, I've committed "virtual/gnustep-back 
> gnustep-base/gnustep-back-xlib" to .../profiles/base/virtuals (atm, 
> whereever GNUstep builds requires x11) and "virtual/gnustep-back 
> gnustep-base/gnustep-back-art" to .../profiles/default-linux/virtuals (not 
> committed yet) as that backend looks a lot better where it's possibly 
> supported. There exist other backends, but they are in heavier development, 
> and I do not plan on supporting them, atm.      

Check gentoo-x86/profiles/profiles.desc for a list of the profiles that 
repoman uses for each architecture.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman failing (seemingly) incorrectly

[Armando Di Cianno]

On 2004-08-31 19:18:55 -0400 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org> wrote:

>> My problem is chronicled here:
>> http://dev.gentoo.org/~fafhrd/whydoesrepomanhateme.html

> Check gentoo-x86/profiles/profiles.desc for a list of the profiles 
> that 
> repoman uses for each architecture.

Just to follow up, in case anyone else has this problem, this, indeed, 
was the problem.

Thanks, Jason!

__Armando Di Cianno



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list