From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JVJoX-0002He-UG for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:59:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 97CD3E054F; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:59:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net (eastrmmtao106.cox.net [68.230.240.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FDDE053E for ; Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:59:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080301045908.XEOD20005.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:59:08 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.54] ([24.170.195.145]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id vgys1Y00138hqwQ0000000; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:58:52 -0500 Message-ID: <47C8E29A.2020003@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:59:06 -0500 From: Doug Klima User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080213) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Baselayout-2 progress? References: <47C812CF.2020903@wildgooses.com> <47C82C9F.7040701@gentoo.org> <47C82FB7.9030308@wildgooses.com> <200802291707.17936.roy@marples.name> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 70d9eb9d-9316-46f3-be63-4c01e054fe75 X-Archives-Hash: ae23a1fc732f2a09caeda19bac8d1a85 Duncan wrote: > Roy Marples posted 200802291707.17936.roy@marples.name, > excerpted below, on Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:07:17 +0000: > >> On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: >>> On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage >>> (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that >>> in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and >>> starting to push it out to users? >> It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and >> never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout >> provides, but it's very very compatible. > > Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be > supported? I was running that for some time and just now added and > upgraded to the via layman version. There's a blocker, of course, as > openrc is now providing most of the files that baselayout did. You just answered your own question. If another package now provides files that an existing package provides, they must be blockers. Considering baselayout-2.0.0_rcX was a masked version and never recommended, it's also not in the direct upgrade path. The proper upgrade is what you've detailed out below. Such are the risks when you unmask a package and install it on your machine. > > The problem is that unmerging the old 2.0.0-rcX baselayout in ordered to > resolve the blockage is SCARY, since it leaves the system basically > unbootable until the new setup is merged and at least basically > configured. There's also the issue of not knowing for sure just what's > going to still be around in terms of config files and the like, since > unmerging baselayout isn't exactly an everyday thing. > > FWIW, I took the jump anyway, and the etc-update seemed to go reasonably > well, but I've not rebooted yet... > -- Doug Klima http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/ -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list