[gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Philip Webb]

Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.

 /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :

   virtual/dev-manager             sys-fs/devfsd

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Stephen P. Becker]

Philip Webb wrote:
> Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
> It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
> I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.
> 
>  /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
> 
>    virtual/dev-manager             sys-fs/devfsd
> 

That is because udev doesn't work with a 2.4 kernel.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Sebastian Bergmann]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 284 bytes --]

Philip Webb schrieb:
> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :

 You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.

-- 
Sebastian Bergmann                      http://www.sebastian-bergmann.de/
GnuPG Key: 0xB85B5D69 / 27A7 2B14 09E4 98CD 6277 0E5B 6867 C514 B85B 5D69

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Philip Webb]

050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> Philip Webb schrieb:
>> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
>  You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.

The  2.4  subdir is the place I found Devfs mentioned,
but I don't seem to be using that subdir.

I actually have
 /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1

So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :

  "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
   !!! This could be damaging to your system"

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 01:36 pm, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> > Philip Webb schrieb:
> >> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
> >
> >  You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
>
> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
>
>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"

known portage bug
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Andrew Gaffney]

Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Sebastian Bergmann wrote:
> 
>>Philip Webb schrieb:
>>
>>>/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/2.4/virtuals :
>>
>> You are using the 2.4 subprofile of 2005.1.
> 
> 
> The  2.4  subdir is the place I found Devfs mentioned,
> but I don't seem to be using that subdir.
> 
> I actually have
>  /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
> 
> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
> 
>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"

Most likely, the reason you're seeing this is because the 'system' target 
contains 'virtual/dev-manager' (defined in /usr/portage/profiles/base/). devfsd 
satisfies this dependency (as well as udev). Portage apparently isn't smart 
enough to notice that there's another package installed that satisfies this 
dependency. You can safely unmerge devfsd if you have udev installed and working.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Philip Webb]

050904 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Philip Webb wrote:
>> I actually have
>>  /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
>> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
>>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
>>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
> Most likely, you're seeing this because the 'system' target contains
> 'virtual/dev-manager' (defined in /usr/portage/profiles/base/). 
> devfsd satisfies this dependency (as well as udev).
> Portage apparently isn't smart enough to notice
> that there's another package installed that satisfies this dependency.
> You can safely unmerge devfsd if you have udev installed and working.

Yes, someone provided a very clear explanation to my parallel query
& yes, Devfsd's ebuild does have a similar 'PROVIDE' line to Joe's.

As you say, Portage lacks intelligence here:
it needs to be educated to check for other packages
or in the meantime make a less forthright warning.

Thanx for your explanation, which is what I really wanted.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1349 bytes --]

On Monday 05 September 2005 04:07, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> > Philip Webb wrote:
> >> I actually have
> >>  /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1
> >> So when I enter 'emerge -Cp devfsd', why do I get :
> >>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'sys-fs/devfsd'
> >>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
> >
> > Most likely, you're seeing this because the 'system' target contains
> > 'virtual/dev-manager' (defined in /usr/portage/profiles/base/).
> > devfsd satisfies this dependency (as well as udev).
> > Portage apparently isn't smart enough to notice
> > that there's another package installed that satisfies this dependency.
> > You can safely unmerge devfsd if you have udev installed and working.
>
> Yes, someone provided a very clear explanation to my parallel query
> & yes, Devfsd's ebuild does have a similar 'PROVIDE' line to Joe's.
>
> As you say, Portage lacks intelligence here:
> it needs to be educated to check for other packages
> or in the meantime make a less forthright warning.
>
> Thanx for your explanation, which is what I really wanted.

Not always possible. If you have two gccs installed and decide to unmerge 
one of them, it is completely possible that it'd break half of your system.

--
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Mike Williams]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red warning.
> It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
> I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device manager.

You installed using an earlier profile, obviously, when devfs was the default 
for virtual/dev-manager (otherwise you wouldn't have it installed).
Because the profile depends on a virtual any attempt to remove a package 
providing that virtual will throw up the warning.
Exactly the same symptom you're seeing with editors on -user.

-- 
Mike Williams
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1078 bytes --]

On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> > is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
> > I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device
> > manager.
>
> You installed using an earlier profile, obviously, when devfs was the
> default for virtual/dev-manager (otherwise you wouldn't have it
> installed). Because the profile depends on a virtual any attempt to
> remove a package providing that virtual will throw up the warning.
> Exactly the same symptom you're seeing with editors on -user.

Yeah, you're right. virtual/editor is a terrible case. :/

Okay, it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key may break 
your system. How's about not warning if there's more than one installed 
cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver) satisfying the profile atom that is being 
triggered?

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Monday 05 September 2005 19:39, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 03:24, Mike Williams wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:11, Philip Webb wrote:
> > > Having gone over to Udev, I went to unmerge Devfs & got a big red
> > > warning. It appears that the 2005.1 profile gives Devfs as a virtual:
> > > is this an oversight or is there a reason behind it ?
> > > I would have assumed that Udev would now be the required device
> > > manager.
> >
> > You installed using an earlier profile, obviously, when devfs was the
> > default for virtual/dev-manager (otherwise you wouldn't have it
> > installed). Because the profile depends on a virtual any attempt to
> > remove a package providing that virtual will throw up the warning.
> > Exactly the same symptom you're seeing with editors on -user.
>
> Yeah, you're right. virtual/editor is a terrible case. :/
>
> Okay, it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key may
> break your system. How's about not warning if there's more than one
> installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver) satisfying the profile atom
> that is being triggered?

This patch follows that rule. Specifically, only one provider yields a 
warning (even with >1 slotted installation of said package) and multiple 
providers doesn't. Care to give it a go?

-- 
Jason Stubbs

[-- Attachment #1.2: syspkgs-multiple-providers-fix.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 651 bytes --]

--- emerge.orig	2005-09-05 20:23:26.655817448 +0900
+++ emerge	2005-09-05 20:21:58.586206064 +0900
@@ -2044,8 +2044,14 @@
 	for x in realsyslist:
 		mycp = portage.dep_getkey(x)
 		if mycp in portage.settings.virtuals:
-			syslist.extend(portage.settings.virtuals[mycp])
-		syslist.append(mycp)
+			providers = []
+			for provider in portage.settings.virtuals[mycp]:
+				if portage.db[portage.root]["vartree"].dbapi.match(provider):
+					providers.append(provider)
+			if len(providers) == 1:
+				syslist.extend(providers)
+		else:
+			syslist.append(mycp)
 
 	global myopts
 	mysettings = portage.config(clone=portage.settings)

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Philip Webb]

050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> virtual/editor is a terrible case. :/
> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> may break your system. How's about not warning
> if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> satisfying the profile atom that is being triggered?
-- patch snipped --

I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone
pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.
Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg 

  "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!
   Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??
   If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!

   Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "

Answering 'yes' would start the usual countdown (i have  10 sec );
any other answer would cancel the unmerge.

That has the virtue of giving the user accurate information
& leaving the final choice -- Gentoo-style -- upto him/her.

Oh & while we're on the subject, why is Joe a virtual, but not E3 ... ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 814 bytes --]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> > may break your system. How's about not warning
> > if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
> > satisfying the profile atom that is being triggered?
>
> -- patch snipped --
>
> I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone
> pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.
> Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg

Why?

>   "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!
>    Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??
>    If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!
>
>    Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "

No.

--
Jason Stubbs

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Duncan]

Jason Stubbs posted <200509060839.34718.jstubbs@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:39:32 +0900:

> On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
>> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
>> > it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
>> > may break your system. How's about not warning
>> > if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
>> > satisfying the profile atom that is being triggered?
>>
>> -- patch snipped --
>>
>> I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone
>> pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.
>> Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg
> 
> Why?
> 
>>   "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!
>>    Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??
>>    If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!
>>
>>    Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "
> 
> No.

Expanding slightly, since no reasons were given.

Portage is normally non-interactive.  The only way the above would work
would be if it were somehow keyed into the "ask" parameter, and then, it
would need to be run before any dependencies were handled, a rather less
than workable possibility at this point (when merging anyway, tho this
particular thing is unmerging).

Currently, the only way to handle this sort of thing is with a
time-delay/beep warning, or by up and dying, in /extreme/ cases, with a
message like *THIS WILL BREAK YOUR SYSTEM UNLESS YOU DO THIS AND THIS
FIRST!*  Do that, and set environmental variable
WONT_BREAK_SYSTEM_NOW=DOIT, to merge the package.

That only works AFTER dependencies may have been merged, so it's not
optimal, either, but in a very few extreme cases, that's the sort of
solution that has been used.

Supposedly, portage is to be a bit better at handling this sort of thing,
in a future version, when it will be able to do it before merging
dependencies.  However, until then, choices are somewhat limited.  IMO, a
warning about system profile stuff SHOULD sound appropriately drastic.
Once the  admin is confident that it's doable without issue, then they can
go ahead, and if their confidence was  misplaced, then it's their issue.
The only remaining thing then, is to put enough info into the warning to
let the admin take the appropriate action.  Pointing out the virtual it's
affecting seems like enough info to me.  If that's not enough for some
folks, perhaps they'd be better off keeping it around, just in 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 in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Philip Webb]

050906 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 September 2005 01:06, Philip Webb wrote:
>> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
>>> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
>>> may break your system. How's about not warning
>>> if there's more than one installed cat/pkg (rather than cat/pkg-ver)
>>> satisfying the profile atom that is being triggered?
>> -- patch snipped --
>> I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone
>> pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.
>> Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg
> 
> Why?
> 
>>   "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!
>>    Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??
>>    If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!
>>
>>    Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "
> 
> No.

Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message
-- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed --
& your other response needs some explanation on your part.
Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind,
but in that case please offer some confirmation at least.

Do you respond so abruptly to your neighbours or colleagues at work ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3033 bytes --]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
> The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message
> -- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed --
> & your other response needs some explanation on your part.
> Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind,
> but in that case please offer some confirmation at least.

Okay. Let's take it one step through at a time.

> >> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >>> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> >>> may break your system.

I explain the reasoning behind the current behaviour.

> >> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >>> How's about not warning if there's more than one installed cat/pkg 
> >>> (rather than cat/pkg-ver) satisfying the profile atom that is being 
> >>> triggered? 

I suggest how to alter that behaviour to cover the former reasoning and 
address the current issue with it.

> >> -- patch snipped --

I supply a working and tested patch 45 minutes later.

> >> I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone

You imply that the patch isn't suitable...

> >> pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.

... for no other reason that it should wait for some unknown "larger 
rewrite" of "this kind of thing".

> >> Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg

Then you suggest that it would be better to frighten the users even more...

> >>   "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!

... by first summarizing the warning you suggest should follow after the 
user hits yes ...

> >>    Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??

... then suggesting that the user should check what my patch would have 
checked for them anyway ...

> >>    If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!

... and then suggesting to the user that they are possibly inept.

> >>    Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "

"NO"? s/possibly/very likely/ in the last sentence then.

> Do you respond so abruptly to your neighbours or colleagues at work ?

Should I have used more words that "Why?" to ask you to explain? That was 
half of my email - and the important half at that - but you never responded 
to it. I believe in expediency and your lack of response to the "why?" 
proves (even if it's only in my mind) that using more words would have been 
a waste of time.

Should I have used more words than "No." to explain why your solution is not 
suitable? I don't think so. It didn't seem thought out at all and I don't 
think it should be my job to help you learn how to think.

If it was a neighbour or colleage that came to me with something like the 
above, I'd just laugh and likely never interact with them again. Perhaps I 
should have done that in this case too.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response

You've rattled me enough that I only responded to this part.

> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.

It wasn't a response to the original poster. It was only a reponse to your 
email.

> The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message

It wasn't clear. That's why I asked "why?"

> -- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed --
> & your other response needs some explanation on your part.

Why do my other responses need more explanation? I didn't even use the 
standard contractions that portage devs use when talking to each other, but 
instead used terminology to ensure that any ebuild dev would understand.

> Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind,

That suggestion is incorrect as my working tested patch shows.

> but in that case please offer some confirmation at least.

I already had via the patch.

--
Jason Stubbs

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