From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10713 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2004 11:01:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 2 Dec 2004 11:01:20 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CZoi7-0001yO-QZ for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:01:19 +0000 Received: (qmail 4175 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2004 11:01:19 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 32588 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2004 11:01:17 +0000 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 12:01:07 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Llu=EDs?= Batlle i Rossell To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20041202110107.GA27739@vicerveza.homeunix.net> References: <20041201222109.GA20954@vicerveza.homeunix.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Uptime: 10:55:12 up 2 days, 12:43, 5 users, load average: 3.55, 2.89, 2.59 X-Accept-Language: ca, es, eo, en, tokipona, ru, jbo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About linux-headers, making stages with catalyst X-Archives-Salt: d9152417-a9a8-4ea4-92a7-d1c16a89e315 X-Archives-Hash: 9cfc5a8e82d574d13a461ba3fb9c7f58 Thanks a lot for the answers. (I answer between your lines) On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:21:20PM -0700, Duncan wrote: > > OK, I know nothing about catalyst, and am just a user generally lurking on > the dev list, but... this one's a portage question at least in part, and I > /think/ I can answer that side of it. > > Virtuals, in portage, mean any single package of a group of packages (all > with provides=) may meet the requirements. If > one is already installed, great, that satisfies the requirement. If no > such literal package fulfilling the requirement is yet installed, however, > portage falls back to a default choice. The default choice is specified in the virtuals, isn't it? > > What you have here is portage falling back to a 2.4 default choice, a 2.4 > kernel and kernel-headers, while you want 2.6 versions. For a live > install, you'd simply install your chosen 2.6 version which would then > provide the virtual you needed. > > I'm on amd64 and as I said haven't worked with catalyst, but AFAIK, what > you need to do there is fix the profile such that the defaults are 2.6. > Why are you still using a 2004.2 profile for one thing? The 2004.3 > profile, if I'm not mistaken, defaults to kernel 2.6 along with updating > other requirements appropriately. If you have no specific reason not to, > I'd suggest updating to the 2004.3 profile. Ok, I'll just try the 2004.3 profile. I thought 2004.2 had 2.6 virtuals. --- I just tried the profile. There isn't a virtuals definition in it! (Portage 20041108) > > If there's a specific reason not to do 2004.3, keep in mind that the > profile you are using is a cascading profile (which means you should be > using portage 2.0.51 as .50 had issues with cascading profiles). Thus, > the defaults from further up the tree are used if a profile itself doesn't > over-rule them. Dirs further /down/ the tree are NOT used, but are there > for those who want them as a special case, therefore, the gcc34 subdir of > your profile is a special case of the 2004.2 profile, with 2.6 being a > special case of the gcc34 special case of the 2004.2 case of the x86 case > of the default-linux profile. If you wish to use that 2004.2/gcc34/2.6 > special case, you may do so, and it should change your requirements > accordingly. I'm using portage 2.0.51-r4. I didn't know how cascade profiles work... I imagined that they worked that way similar... > > If that still doesn't fit your rather customized case, then simply > customize the requirements. Again, using cascading profiles, virtuals > from up the tree are used if nothing in the current profile dir overrides > them. Thus, the virtuals file in x86 says use gentoo-sources (a 2.4 > kernel) as the default virtual/linux-sources, while it falls back up to > default-linux to get the default for virtual/os-headers, > sys-kernel/linux-headers (kernel 2.4 headers). Are you talking about using the profile "portage/profiles/default-linux" instead of "portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.2" ? In which case is "portage/profiles/default-linux/virtuals" read? Will that file be read, if I have the profile 2004.3 or 2004.2? And what about the portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/virtuals? > > Forcing 2.6 kernel and headers means placing a virtuals file in the > current profile, overriding those up the tree from it, with the defaults > you want, probably the same ones as in x86/2004.3, or in > x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6, for those items. Hummm I think _now_ I understand the problem. I read the virtuals file in x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6, and there was 2.6 virtuals. So, I thought that the x86/2004.2 profile had 2.6 virtuals. I thought that the cascade was going down to directories, and not up! I thought that that was strange... :) > > Because I've never used catalyst, I'm not sure where you put edits to its > profile. I assume you put them in the stage1root you mentioned, but > that's just a guess. Read the documentation, or do a bit of experimenting. Aha. I was in confusion with the 'direction' of the cascade, so I thought 2004.2 had virtuals. What I've tried, while answering this email: I've tried using 2004.3 => Still keeps on using 2.4 (there are no virtual definitions in 2004.3!) I've tried using default-linux/x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6/ as profile => Even this way emerge still keeps on using 2.4 I've tried changing the content of the virtuals in default-linux and default-linux/x86 => YES! Now it installs 2.6 headers. But... Shouldn't the other tries work ??? At least, you say that about 2004.3, and the profile ....gcc34/2.6/ seems to have virtuals defined there. Thanks! -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list