[gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Doug Goldstein]

With the new split in Portage where system set packages are not 
considered in an "emerge -auDNv world" unless something in world 
RDEPENDs on it brings about a few issues.

i.e. Portage implicitly has a run time dependency on app-arch/tar, 
app-arch/bzip2, app-arch/gzip, app-arch/lzma due to the fact that 
Portage will use these utilities when "unpack" is called inside of an 
ebuild. As such these are run time depends of Portage and need to be in 
RDEPEND (the same would technically be true for pkgcore and paludis, 
unless they use tar's support for those formats and then its up to tar 
to depend properly).

This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.

If you're running Portage 2.2_rc1 on a system you can see if any 
packages have begun to slack behind on your system in the system set.

emerge -puv @system

You might notice packages in here that are used on a daily basis but are 
now no longer being updated.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
> address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
> contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.

Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Doug Goldstein]

Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>   
>> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
>> address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
>> contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
>> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
>>     
>
> Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
> though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
>
>   
Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.

[1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/misc/rindex/virtual/libc
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 902 bytes --]

2008-07-18 16:01:28 Doug Goldstein napisał(a):
> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >   
> >> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know how to 
> >> address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be updated to 
> >> contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
> >> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
> >>     
> >
> > Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me. I
> > though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
> >
> >   
> Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
> the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.

IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify '@system' during
updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Richard Freeman]

Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>   
> Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one of 
> the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.
> 

Sure it will.  When the version of libc you have installed is removed 
from the portage tree you'll get bumped to the most recent version 
(stable/testing as appropriate).

Works fine for me.  I generally don't care if I'm running an older 
version of libc.  If something requires a particular version it will 
have a dependency and will pull it in.

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Robert Bridge]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
> '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.

Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Rob.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Marius Mauch]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Olivier Crête wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> >   
> >> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
> >> how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be
> >> updated to contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
> >> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
> >>     
> >
> > Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me.
> > I though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
> >
> >   
> Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one
> of the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.

Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world updates
(there are still many cases where it will be included), but that's not
the only available operation in portage.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Marius Mauch]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:21:24 +0100
Robert Bridge <robert@robbieab.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
> > '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
> 
> Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Because that doesn't actually fix the problem, it just covers it up to
some degree (there has never been a guarantee that "system" is
actually satisifed when you install a package). Also the new solution is
more flexible as it still allows you to include system in world easily,
or update/rebuild system and world separately. And for a full system
updates there is a new target available that actually includes all
installed packages.
Yes, this is going to require some user reeducation, and yes, this will
take some time, but it isn't as dramatic as some people make it. The
whole "implicit-system-dependency" thing has never existed, it was
always a broken assumption that only didn't blow up badly because a) the
"system" target rarely changes b) most packages only depend on a tiny
part of "system" and c) most users actually do full system updates
regulary.
As soon as you want to install a package that actually implicitly
depends on something in "system" that isn't already installed the whole
thing breaks down.

Marius
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: system set no longer in part of world set

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 567 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:01:23 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> With the new split in Portage where system set packages are not 
> considered in an "emerge -auDNv world" unless something in world 
> RDEPENDs on it brings about a few issues.

Just curious, what are the benefits of not having world include system?


-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: system set no longer in part of world set

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 438 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:13:01 -0600
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Just curious, what are the benefits of not having world include
> system?

Nevermind, I just found your post explaining this.

-- 
gcc-porting,                                      by design, by neglect
treecleaner,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Markus Rothe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

Robert Bridge wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
> > '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
> 
> Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?

Paludis has "everything" for updating all packages. Would that be an option
for portage, too?

I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything`

-markus

P.S.: where does that '@' come from?

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Markus Rothe <corsair@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Robert Bridge wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify
>> > '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`.
>>
>> Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system?
>
> Paludis has "everything" for updating all packages. Would that be an option
> for portage, too?
>
> I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything`

It exists as well...

>
> -markus
>
> P.S.: where does that '@' come from?
>

'@' denotes that the atom refers to a set and not any other kind of atom.

-Alec
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Doug Goldstein]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:01:28 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Olivier Crête wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 18:01 -0400, Doug Goldstein wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> This brings out the fun of circular depends. I don't really know
>>>> how to address this but a lot of packages are going to have to be
>>>> updated to contain proper depends. i.e. C based apps will need 
>>>> RDEPEND="virtual/libc". C++ packages will need a stdc++ depend.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Adding a dep to libc almost everywhere seems extremely wrong to me.
>>> I though we had decided many times that it was a bad idea.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Yes. Adding libc everywhere is wrong. However, if you don't have one
>> of the packages listed here [1], your libc won't ever update.
>>     
>
> Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world updates
> (there are still many cases where it will be included), but that's not
> the only available operation in portage.
>
> Marius
>   
We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a machine 
that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want to upgrade 
either of those packages to the latest ~arch.

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Marius Mauch]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:02:57 -0400
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world
> > updates (there are still many cases where it will be included), but
> > that's not the only available operation in portage.
> >
> > Marius
> >   
> We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a
> machine that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want
> to upgrade either of those packages to the latest ~arch.
> 
I know, but just because it did (not) happen in your case doesn't mean
it will be the same for everyone else.

Marius

Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set

[Doug Goldstein]

Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:02:57 -0400
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>   
>> Marius Mauch wrote:
>>     
>>> Now that's a big exaggeration. It _might_ be missing from world
>>> updates (there are still many cases where it will be included), but
>>> that's not the only available operation in portage.
>>>
>>> Marius
>>>   
>>>       
>> We discussed this in #gentoo-portage the other day where I had a
>> machine that was on gcc 4.3.1 (not -r1) and glibc 2.7 and didn't want
>> to upgrade either of those packages to the latest ~arch.
>>
>>     
> I know, but just because it did (not) happen in your case doesn't mean
> it will be the same for everyone else.
>
> Marius
>
>   
Given the same package set and world file that I have, it will happen 
every time. Also specific variations of my package set and world file 
will result in the issue. Which means that it will occur for other 
people but no one ever said everyone.