[gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Emiel Kollof]

Hi folks,

Why is it, when I unmask a package (with a  higher version number than the 
"official one") by using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, portage downgrades it on the next 
emerge -u world to a lower version? This is very irritating behaviour. Can it 
be turned off or disabled somehow?

Of course I can hack it out of portage (or hack something into portage that 
watches version numbers and bypass mask checking), but that's kind of a dirty 
way to do it. 

Any insights?

Cheers,
Emiel 
-- 
The real reason large families benefit society is because at least
a few of the children in the world shouldn't be raised by beginners.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Dylan Carlson]

On Thursday 30 January 2003 08:42 am, Emiel Kollof wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Why is it, when I unmask a package (with a  higher version number than
> the "official one") by using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, portage downgrades it on
> the next emerge -u world to a lower version? This is very irritating
> behaviour. Can it be turned off or disabled somehow?
>

One way to do it:  remove whatever packages you do not want touched by 
"world" out of /var/cache/edb/world.  The packages in that file are the 
only ones that will get looked at whenever you run 'emerge -u world'.  

Secondarily, I suggest running 'emerge -up world' to see what would be 
downgraded first, without actually running anything. 

Automatic downgrading is generally healthy behavior (if for example, we 
unmasked a new version which later proved broken/unstable, therefore we 
need people to revert to an older, stable release).

This is a FAQ...   I'm sure there are some enhancements to Portage underway  
which will make this issue more elegant/intuitive.

Cheers,
Dylan Carlson [absinthe@pobox.com]

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Louis-Philippe Brochu]

> One way to do it:  remove whatever packages you do not want touched by
> "world" out of /var/cache/edb/world.  The packages in that file are the
> only ones that will get looked at whenever you run 'emerge -u world'.

Well there is two problems with this approach. First one is that by
removing this package from the world file it will not be updated anymore
when a new version (newer than the one installed) is released. Second
problem is that this hack won't work if the package removed from the world
file is required as a dependency for another package you're trying to
install. Portage will resolve the denpendency, will want to install your
package and will downgrade it.

> Secondarily, I suggest running 'emerge -up world' to see what would be
> downgraded first, without actually running anything.
>
> Automatic downgrading is generally healthy behavior (if for example, we
> unmasked a new version which later proved broken/unstable, therefore we
> need people to revert to an older, stable release).

Yes but there should be a way to disable this. An option to "pin" a
minimum version of a package or to simply disable the possibility of
downgrading a package (with a switch on the command line or better, a
configurable option in /etc/make.conf).

The case you are talking about *should* pratically never happen if
packages we're tested *before* being released.

> This is a FAQ...   I'm sure there are some enhancements to Portage
> underway   which will make this issue more elegant/intuitive.

I really hope the Gentoo developpers will add this functionnality. Ever
since the introduction for the ~arch keywords packages updates have been a
mess for me. If you are running on a stable system exclusively everything
is fine. Same thing if you are running exclusively with an unstable system
(with ~arch). If you never use the emerge world command you should not
have many problems, just define the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS before emerging
unstable packages and you're ok.

The problem comes when you are using stable *and* unstable *and* emerge
world command. Try to emerge world a mix of stable and unstable packages
and see all the packages downgrades. Try to define ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, now
Portage wants to install all unstable packages. Mask the old version of
unstable packages you installed (or just remove them from the world file)
and watch Portage trying to resolve a dependency for another packages and
downgrade your package anyway... The only thing Portage need is a
"don't-ever-downgrade-my-packages" function IMHO.



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Caleb Shay]

You can "pin" a package.  Just put ">=app-grp/appname-x.y.z" into
/var/cache/edb/world and emerge -u world won't try to downgrade, or use
= instead of >= and it will never try to change the version at all.

Caleb

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:18, Louis-Philippe Brochu wrote:
> > One way to do it:  remove whatever packages you do not want touched by
> > "world" out of /var/cache/edb/world.  The packages in that file are the
> > only ones that will get looked at whenever you run 'emerge -u world'.
> 
> Well there is two problems with this approach. First one is that by
> removing this package from the world file it will not be updated anymore
> when a new version (newer than the one installed) is released. Second
> problem is that this hack won't work if the package removed from the world
> file is required as a dependency for another package you're trying to
> install. Portage will resolve the denpendency, will want to install your
> package and will downgrade it.
> 
> > Secondarily, I suggest running 'emerge -up world' to see what would be
> > downgraded first, without actually running anything.
> >
> > Automatic downgrading is generally healthy behavior (if for example, we
> > unmasked a new version which later proved broken/unstable, therefore we
> > need people to revert to an older, stable release).
> 
> Yes but there should be a way to disable this. An option to "pin" a
> minimum version of a package or to simply disable the possibility of
> downgrading a package (with a switch on the command line or better, a
> configurable option in /etc/make.conf).
> 
> The case you are talking about *should* pratically never happen if
> packages we're tested *before* being released.
> 
> > This is a FAQ...   I'm sure there are some enhancements to Portage
> > underway   which will make this issue more elegant/intuitive.
> 
> I really hope the Gentoo developpers will add this functionnality. Ever
> since the introduction for the ~arch keywords packages updates have been a
> mess for me. If you are running on a stable system exclusively everything
> is fine. Same thing if you are running exclusively with an unstable system
> (with ~arch). If you never use the emerge world command you should not
> have many problems, just define the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS before emerging
> unstable packages and you're ok.
> 
> The problem comes when you are using stable *and* unstable *and* emerge
> world command. Try to emerge world a mix of stable and unstable packages
> and see all the packages downgrades. Try to define ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, now
> Portage wants to install all unstable packages. Mask the old version of
> unstable packages you installed (or just remove them from the world file)
> and watch Portage trying to resolve a dependency for another packages and
> downgrade your package anyway... The only thing Portage need is a
> "don't-ever-downgrade-my-packages" function IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
/*---------------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Shay                                   "UNIX _IS_ user friendly.
Programmer/System Administrator              It's just particular about
Providence, RI                               who its friends are."
---------------------------------------------------------------------*/


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Blake Watters]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3219 bytes --]

The simplest way to take care of it is to run an emerge -up and then perform an emerge inject for any packages that would be downgraded. This will prevent it from happening on this merge and on into the future -- until another version of the package is released.

Aside from that, you're going to have to sit tight. You are, after all, running development packages and as such have taken on the added burden associated with that choice. 

Blake

On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:18:31 -0500 (EST)
"Louis-Philippe Brochu" <lpbrochu@videotron.ca> wrote:

> > One way to do it:  remove whatever packages you do not want touched by
> > "world" out of /var/cache/edb/world.  The packages in that file are the
> > only ones that will get looked at whenever you run 'emerge -u world'.
> 
> Well there is two problems with this approach. First one is that by
> removing this package from the world file it will not be updated anymore
> when a new version (newer than the one installed) is released. Second
> problem is that this hack won't work if the package removed from the world
> file is required as a dependency for another package you're trying to
> install. Portage will resolve the denpendency, will want to install your
> package and will downgrade it.
> 
> > Secondarily, I suggest running 'emerge -up world' to see what would be
> > downgraded first, without actually running anything.
> >
> > Automatic downgrading is generally healthy behavior (if for example, we
> > unmasked a new version which later proved broken/unstable, therefore we
> > need people to revert to an older, stable release).
> 
> Yes but there should be a way to disable this. An option to "pin" a
> minimum version of a package or to simply disable the possibility of
> downgrading a package (with a switch on the command line or better, a
> configurable option in /etc/make.conf).
> 
> The case you are talking about *should* pratically never happen if
> packages we're tested *before* being released.
> 
> > This is a FAQ...   I'm sure there are some enhancements to Portage
> > underway   which will make this issue more elegant/intuitive.
> 
> I really hope the Gentoo developpers will add this functionnality. Ever
> since the introduction for the ~arch keywords packages updates have been a
> mess for me. If you are running on a stable system exclusively everything
> is fine. Same thing if you are running exclusively with an unstable system
> (with ~arch). If you never use the emerge world command you should not
> have many problems, just define the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS before emerging
> unstable packages and you're ok.
> 
> The problem comes when you are using stable *and* unstable *and* emerge
> world command. Try to emerge world a mix of stable and unstable packages
> and see all the packages downgrades. Try to define ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, now
> Portage wants to install all unstable packages. Mask the old version of
> unstable packages you installed (or just remove them from the world file)
> and watch Portage trying to resolve a dependency for another packages and
> downgrade your package anyway... The only thing Portage need is a
> "don't-ever-downgrade-my-packages" function IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Louis-Philippe Brochu]

> The simplest way to take care of it is to run an emerge -up and then
> perform an emerge inject for any packages that would be downgraded. This
> will prevent it from happening on this merge and on into the future --
> until another version of the package is released.

I've never tried this because i heard that it cause some problems later...
i think when the real packages are updated or something like that... Is it
a safe method?

> Aside from that, you're going to have to sit tight. You are, after all,
> running development packages and as such have taken on the added burden
> associated with that choice.

I don't agree with you on this one, if i was modifying the package.mask
file for experimental/broken packages (like i do sometimes) i would
understand. However for unstable package that are part of Gentoo i don't
understand why i would have an added burden. Stable and unstable packages
are standard function in Gentoo so i don't think it's an excuse to lack
the functionnality to handle them well. Debian doens't restrict you for
this, neither does Red Hat or Suse, etc... Especially in the case of
Gentoo that defines itself as a bleeding edge distro. I just want to say
that i understand that developers don't have time to implement all the
functions at once but i think that it's not a normal behavior in it should
be fixed in the future...



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Louis-Philippe Brochu]

hmmmm that looks exactly like what i'm searching for! I'll try it as soon
as i get home.

thanks!

> You can "pin" a package.  Just put ">=app-grp/appname-x.y.z" into
> /var/cache/edb/world and emerge -u world won't try to downgrade, or use
> = instead of >= and it will never try to change the version at all.
>
> Caleb
>
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:18, Louis-Philippe Brochu wrote:
>> > One way to do it:  remove whatever packages you do not want touched
>> by "world" out of /var/cache/edb/world.  The packages in that file
>> are the only ones that will get looked at whenever you run 'emerge
>> -u world'.
>>
>> Well there is two problems with this approach. First one is that by
>> removing this package from the world file it will not be updated
>> anymore when a new version (newer than the one installed) is released.
>> Second problem is that this hack won't work if the package removed
>> from the world file is required as a dependency for another package
>> you're trying to install. Portage will resolve the denpendency, will
>> want to install your package and will downgrade it.
>>
>> > Secondarily, I suggest running 'emerge -up world' to see what would
>> be downgraded first, without actually running anything.
>> >
>> > Automatic downgrading is generally healthy behavior (if for example,
>> we unmasked a new version which later proved broken/unstable,
>> therefore we need people to revert to an older, stable release).
>>
>> Yes but there should be a way to disable this. An option to "pin" a
>> minimum version of a package or to simply disable the possibility of
>> downgrading a package (with a switch on the command line or better, a
>> configurable option in /etc/make.conf).
>>
>> The case you are talking about *should* pratically never happen if
>> packages we're tested *before* being released.
>>
>> > This is a FAQ...   I'm sure there are some enhancements to Portage
>> underway   which will make this issue more elegant/intuitive.
>>
>> I really hope the Gentoo developpers will add this functionnality.
>> Ever since the introduction for the ~arch keywords packages updates
>> have been a mess for me. If you are running on a stable system
>> exclusively everything is fine. Same thing if you are running
>> exclusively with an unstable system (with ~arch). If you never use the
>> emerge world command you should not have many problems, just define
>> the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS before emerging unstable packages and you're ok.
>>
>> The problem comes when you are using stable *and* unstable *and*
>> emerge world command. Try to emerge world a mix of stable and unstable
>> packages and see all the packages downgrades. Try to define
>> ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, now Portage wants to install all unstable packages.
>> Mask the old version of unstable packages you installed (or just
>> remove them from the world file) and watch Portage trying to resolve a
>> dependency for another packages and downgrade your package anyway...
>> The only thing Portage need is a "don't-ever-downgrade-my-packages"
>> function IMHO.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> --
> /*---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Caleb Shay                                   "UNIX _IS_ user friendly.
> Programmer/System Administrator              It's just particular about
> Providence, RI                               who its friends are."
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------*/
>
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list




--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Troy Dack]

Louis-Philippe Brochu said:
> The problem comes when you are using stable *and* unstable *and* emerge
> world command. Try to emerge world a mix of stable and unstable packages
> and see all the packages downgrades. Try to define ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, now
> Portage wants to install all unstable packages. Mask the old version of
> unstable packages you installed (or just remove them from the world
> file) and watch Portage trying to resolve a dependency for another
> packages and downgrade your package anyway... The only thing Portage
> need is a "don't-ever-downgrade-my-packages" function IMHO.

Pin the package in the world file like so:

=foobar-1.2

Will not attempt to upgrade foobar and keep it at version 1.2

>=foobar-1.5

Will not install versions <= 1.5 of foobar


Now regarding your complaint about not being able to pick 'n' mix
stable/unstable packages.  Have you ever tried to run a Debian system that
is a mix of Debian stable and unstable? I don't think it can be done
easily or cleanly.

RPM distros fare a little better but try installing 1 or 2 packages from
Mandrake Cooker onto a Mandrake stable system, RPM dependency hell here we
come.

If you are not patient enough to wait for a package to be tranistioned to
stable, then you are going to have to accept that not everything will work
"the way you want it to" with unstable packages.

-- 
     Troy Dack

     http://linux.tkdack.com



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Alan]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 08:55:56AM +1100, Troy Dack wrote:
> Now regarding your complaint about not being able to pick 'n' mix
> stable/unstable packages.  Have you ever tried to run a Debian system that
> is a mix of Debian stable and unstable? I don't think it can be done
> easily or cleanly.

I've never had to do this to be honest, but I can see how it could get
messy.  However, dselect has a 'hold' feature to prevent upgrading of
packages by tagging the package with the '=' key.  Great feature, which
would work well here if gentoo used a graphical program like dselect.  

The behaviour was to still let you know if a package had upgrades, but
would not upgrade it.  Portage could do this as well, maybe with another
tag when it prints out the list of packages you see 'U' or 'D' if something 
is downgraded or upgraded, but 'u' or 'd' if it is marked for
up/downgrade, but won't be.  Or soemthing like that :)

alan

-- 
Alan <alan@ufies.org> - http://arcterex.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The only thing that experience teaches us is that experience teaches 
us nothing.	        -- Andre Maurois (Emile Herzog)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[J Robert Ray]

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

Emiel Kollof wrote:
| Hi folks,
|
| Why is it, when I unmask a package (with a  higher version number than
the
| "official one") by using ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, portage downgrades it on the
next
| emerge -u world to a lower version? This is very irritating behaviour.
Can it
| be turned off or disabled somehow?
|
| Of course I can hack it out of portage (or hack something into portage
that
| watches version numbers and bypass mask checking), but that's kind of
a dirty
| way to do it.
|
| Any insights?

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12069

- - Robert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.1.90-nr1 (Windows XP)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+Ohvubv6Y11NqSv8RApAvAKCmMsEOWYHZTyDGroFo9/8bc42ZUQCeOJLY
pTRovmgUFBIYxCiOcQxf+bQ=
=insy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Louis-Philippe Brochu]

On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 16:55, Troy Dack wrote:
> Pin the package in the world file like so:
> 
> =foobar-1.2
> 
> Will not attempt to upgrade foobar and keep it at version 1.2
> 
> >=foobar-1.5
> 
> Will not install versions <= 1.5 of foobar

I tried it and it works fine thanks.

> Now regarding your complaint about not being able to pick 'n' mix
> stable/unstable packages.  Have you ever tried to run a Debian system that
> is a mix of Debian stable and unstable? I don't think it can be done
> easily or cleanly.
> 
> RPM distros fare a little better but try installing 1 or 2 packages from
> Mandrake Cooker onto a Mandrake stable system, RPM dependency hell here we
> come.

Well i did try Debian and for what i used it i never had a problem
mixing unstable and stable packages.

> If you are not patient enough to wait for a package to be tranistioned to
> stable, then you are going to have to accept that not everything will work
> "the way you want it to" with unstable packages.

Well i don't think it should be the case at all! Especially not in a
bleeding edge distro like Gentoo...

...and in fact i complained only because i didn't know about the trick
in the world file and the inclusion of a new -g option to Portage (see
other post in this thread). Now Portage have everything i need. :)

-- 
Louis-Philippe Brochu <lpbrochu@videotron.ca>


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage irk...

[Emiel Kollof]

On Friday 31 January 2003 07:47, J Robert Ray wrote:

[snip]

> | Any insights?
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12069

Great! This is exactly what I was looking for. '-g' rocks. Can we keep it? Can 
we? Pretty please?

Cheers,
Emiel
-- 
QOTD:
	Sacred cows make great hamburgers.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list