[gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50

[gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50

[Ferris McCormick]

I also got an invitation to upgrade to subject version.  This
forced a python upgrade as well to python-2.2.3 and an invitation
to update a huge number of packages depending on python.

Well, that's OK if everything works.

When you force a corresponding upgrade to gentoolkit-0.2.0_pre5,
etcat becomes broken:
===========
terciopelo edb # etcat belongs /usr/bin/etcat
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/etcat", line 664, in ?
    main()
  File "/usr/bin/etcat", line 660, in main
    function(query, matches)
TypeError: belongs() takes exactly 1 argument (2 given)
===========

Not so good.

I was further invited to upgrade a number of packages, starting
with libperl+perl:

Now, as previously reported, REALLY BAD:
==========
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/xpak.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/xpak.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/cvstree.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/cvstree.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/getbinpkg.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/getbinpkg.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/output.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/output.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_cpickle.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_cpickle.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
=========

And, of course it still wants to do libperl, perl, etc.

Those unlinks can't ever be right, can they?

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1313 bytes --]

On Friday 06 February 2004 08:44 pm, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> When you force a corresponding upgrade to gentoolkit-0.2.0_pre5,
> etcat becomes broken:

this is known and i dont believe there are plans to fix it ... use equery 
since it's going to replace etcat/qpkg

> Now, as previously reported, REALLY BAD:
> ==========
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/xpak.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/xpak.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/cvstree.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/cvstree.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/getbinpkg.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/getbinpkg.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/output.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/output.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_cpickle.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_cpickle.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
> open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc

did you look in bugzilla ?  i remember seeing these things before and i kind 
of remember them being arch-specific, but i also remember them being 
fixed ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50

[Ferris McCormick]

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> On Friday 06 February 2004 08:44 pm, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > When you force a corresponding upgrade to gentoolkit-0.2.0_pre5,
> > etcat becomes broken:
..................
..................
> 
> > unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> > open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> > unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
> > open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
> 
> did you look in bugzilla ?  i remember seeing these things before and i kind 
> of remember them being arch-specific, but i also remember them being 
> fixed ...
> -mike
>

I don't know if it was architecture specific, but at one time it was
fixed.  This was just reported as new by someone else on this mailing 
list, too, (at about 00:00GMT), so I decided to pile on, because
it seems to be back with portage 2.0.50.  I'll know in a while,
because I temporarily reverted to 2.0.49-r21, and am trying perl again.

But that takes a while.

-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Ferris McCormick wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 
> > On Friday 06 February 2004 08:44 pm, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > When you force a corresponding upgrade to gentoolkit-0.2.0_pre5,
> > > etcat becomes broken:
> ..................
> ..................
> > 
> > > unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> > > open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_template.pyc
> > > unlink:    /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
> > > open_wr:   /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage_db_flat.pyc
> > 
> > did you look in bugzilla ?  i remember seeing these things before and i kind 
> > of remember them being arch-specific, but i also remember them being 
> > fixed ...
> > -mike
> >
> 
> I don't know if it was architecture specific, but at one time it was
> fixed.  This was just reported as new by someone else on this mailing 
> list, too, (at about 00:00GMT), so I decided to pile on, because
> it seems to be back with portage 2.0.50.  I'll know in a while,
> because I temporarily reverted to 2.0.49-r21, and am trying perl again.
> 
> But that takes a while.
>
OK, 2.0.49-r21 can do perllib+perl, but portage-2.0.50 gave all those 
unlink: messages.  I don't think this is a fluke, since I am the second
person in about 6 hours to notice this (previous mail was to gentoo-dev).

I am copying gentoo-sparc on the off-chance it is architecture related,
but having it reported in more than one location would seem to make
that unlikely.

For now, I am staying on 2.0.49 until 2.0.50 gets wider dispersion,
since it just went to stable.  (Because of the python upgrade and
several other packages unrelated to python also wanting upgrades,
right now I have a significant amount of work for portage to do.)

If you need anything more or if you need a bug report, let me know,
but I don't have enough information to write a very meaningful
bug report at this time.

Regards, 

-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1069 bytes --]

On Saturday 07 February 2004 05:35, Ferris McCormick wrote:
>
> OK, 2.0.49-r21 can do perllib+perl, but portage-2.0.50 gave all those
> unlink: messages.  I don't think this is a fluke, since I am the second
> person in about 6 hours to notice this (previous mail was to gentoo-dev).

It has to do with they python update. Make sure that your python updates are 
effectualized. After that things should work.

> For now, I am staying on 2.0.49 until 2.0.50 gets wider dispersion,
> since it just went to stable.  (Because of the python upgrade and
> several other packages unrelated to python also wanting upgrades,
> right now I have a significant amount of work for portage to do.)

The python upgrade is the problem.

> If you need anything more or if you need a bug report, let me know,
> but I don't have enough information to write a very meaningful
> bug report at this time.

run python-updater, and things should work afterwards.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Paul de Vrieze wrote:

> 
> It has to do with they python update. Make sure that your python updates are 
> effectualized. After that things should work.
> 
> 
> The python upgrade is the problem.
>

That occured to me, but I didn't see anything remaining on this list
that should matter to portage??? 
===================
   Adding to list: x11-libs/vte-0.10.25
   Adding to list: app-arch/rpm-4.0.4-r4
   Adding to list: media-libs/pdflib-5.0.2
   Adding to list: media-libs/lcms-1.12
   Adding to list: media-libs/pdflib-4.0.3-r1
   Adding to list: dev-libs/libxslt-1.0.25
   Adding to list: dev-libs/libxml2-2.6.3
   Adding to list: dev-python/orbit-python-0.3.1
   Adding to list: dev-python/PyQt-3.5
   Adding to list: dev-python/mysql-python-0.9.2-r1
   Adding to list: dev-python/python-fchksum-1.6.1-r1
   Adding to list: dev-python/sip-3.5
   Adding to list: dev-python/pyOpenSSL-0.5.1
   Adding to list: dev-python/pygtk-0.6.9
   Adding to list: dev-python/PyOpenGL-2.0.0.44
   Adding to list: dev-python/pygtk-1.99.13-r1
   Adding to list: dev-python/wxPython-2.4.1.2
   Adding to list: dev-python/pyxml-0.7.1
   Adding to list: dev-python/pyorbit-2.0.0
   Adding to list: dev-python/pygtk-2.0.0
===================
 
> 
> run python-updater, and things should work afterwards.
> 

If so, perhaps the 'python-updater' message in the python upgrade
should be stronger, because you are saying that the one-and-only
guaranteed order of things for this particular operation is:

1.  emerge -u python
2.  python-updater
3.  [Finish python-updater by-hand stuff]
4.  emerge -u portage    <<<<
5.  emerge -u gentoolkit
6.  emerge -uUv world

Regards,
-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Alastair Tse]

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


On 7 Feb 2004, at 11:57, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> If so, perhaps the 'python-updater' message in the python upgrade
> should be stronger, because you are saying that the one-and-only
> guaranteed order of things for this particular operation is:
>

You mean being in gentoo-announce and on #gentoo's topic is not strong 
enough? A clarification of the problem here is not that you are running 
python-2.3, but because your python version was older than 
python-2.2.3-r5 and hence did not have the patches that prevented it 
from trying to make .pyc's inside sandbox.

It has nothing to do with running or not python-updater. BTW, how is it 
possible that python's emerge came after portage? I haven't seen that 
behaviour before.

Cheers,
- --
Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
  >> Gentoo Developer (Python/GNOME/CJK/PDA/Bluetooth)
  >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFAJRqNOM4cezkHFPYRAhfeAKCmoKtufcbRDyTZd3i2/papTq2sKwCfZKXS
MfSqJlPxqTn+aJVwR0M8ZiA=
=2HqW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Alastair Tse wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On 7 Feb 2004, at 11:57, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > If so, perhaps the 'python-updater' message in the python upgrade
> > should be stronger, because you are saying that the one-and-only
> > guaranteed order of things for this particular operation is:
> >
> 
> You mean being in gentoo-announce and on #gentoo's topic is not strong 
> enough? A clarification of the problem here is not that you are running 
> python-2.3, but because your python version was older than 
> python-2.2.3-r5 and hence did not have the patches that prevented it 
> from trying to make .pyc's inside sandbox.
>

Well, no, I was running python-2.2.3-r5, upgraded to -2.3, thus says 
genlop:
===========
 Merged   at Sun Jan  4 03:06:03 2004    (python-2.2.3-r5)
 Merged   at Sat Feb  7 00:11:17 2004    (python-2.3.3)
============
(And there isn't any python version between these two for me not to
have been running.)  The error comes from python-2.3.3+portage-2.0.50
on running 'emerge -uUv perl'
 
> It has nothing to do with running or not python-updater. BTW, how is it 
> possible that python's emerge came after portage? I haven't seen that 
> behaviour before.
>
Again, no, it did python first.
==============
Merged   at Sat Feb  7 00:14:18 2004    (portage-2.0.50)
==============

And running python-updater wasn't MY idea; it came from pauldv.  I
was expressing consternation that running python-updater should be
required to make a portage upgrade work without a warning to go
along with it.

> Cheers,
> - --
> Alastair 'liquidx' Tse
>   >> Gentoo Developer (Python/GNOME/CJK/PDA/Bluetooth)
>   >> http://www.liquidx.net/ | http://dev.gentoo.org/~liquidx/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
> 
> iD8DBQFAJRqNOM4cezkHFPYRAhfeAKCmoKtufcbRDyTZd3i2/papTq2sKwCfZKXS
> MfSqJlPxqTn+aJVwR0M8ZiA=
> =2HqW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 

-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] More on portage 2.0.50 (4)

[Ferris McCormick]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Ferris McCormick wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Feb 2004, Alastair Tse wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > 
> > On 7 Feb 2004, at 11:57, Ferris McCormick wrote:
> > > If so, perhaps the 'python-updater' message in the python upgrade
> > > should be stronger, because you are saying that the one-and-only
> > > guaranteed order of things for this particular operation is:
> > >
> > 
> > You mean being in gentoo-announce and on #gentoo's topic is not strong 
> > enough? A clarification of the problem here is not that you are running 
> > python-2.3, but because your python version was older than 
> > python-2.2.3-r5 and hence did not have the patches that prevented it 
> > from trying to make .pyc's inside sandbox.
> >
>
I see that in my original note, I wrote "upgrade to python-2.2.3" instead
of "python-2.3.3."  I sometimes make that kind of transposition; sorry for 
the confusion...)

> Well, no, I was running python-2.2.3-r5, upgraded to -2.3, thus says 
> genlop:
> ===========
>  Merged   at Sun Jan  4 03:06:03 2004    (python-2.2.3-r5)
>  Merged   at Sat Feb  7 00:11:17 2004    (python-2.3.3)
> ============
> 

-- 
Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <mccormickf@abanet.org>
Host: terciopelo (U2-SMP GenToo Linux)
Fax:  (703) 392-0401


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list