[gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Stroller]

Hi there,

I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 "stable" (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently.

During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the "an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it" message.

I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage.

Now:

# emerge -up world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!

[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]

# emerge -up system

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!

[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]

# emerge -up portage

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!

[ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE="less%*" 

#

The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as "oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage" (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 ("stable") as possible. 

What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check:
Is this the behaviour I should be seeing?
Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before?

I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right.
Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates?

TIA,

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sunday, July 31 at 05:44 (+0100), Stroller said:

> Hi there,
> 
> I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 "stable" (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently.
> 
> During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the "an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it" message.
> 
> I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage.
> 
> Now:
> 
> # emerge -up world
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]
> 
> # emerge -up system
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]
> 
> # emerge -up portage
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE="less%*" 
> 
> #
> 
> The answer to this, for me, is not to move to testing / unstable / ~x86 portage. Not on this box, I don't think, at least. I've seen that suggested here in the past as "oh, everyone should be on ~86 / ~amd64 for portage" (is that the 2.2 series of Portage??) and really I don't see the need for myself. The current version really does everything I need, and I'd rather stay as much x86 ("stable") as possible. 
> 
> What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check:
> Is this the behaviour I should be seeing?
> Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before?
> 
> I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right.
> Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates?
> 

Firstly, regarding the subject line.  Portage isn't in world.  It's in
the system set.

Secondly, I really don't understand the question.  You are in
x86/stable, ok I understand that...  Even in stable software gets
updated.  Portage is a piece of software.  There is an update.  There's
nothing "unusual" about that.

What exactly is the question?

You could choose to not upgrade portage (though I don't know why you
would do that), but that would mean you won't receive any bug fixes it
may have, or take advantage of any new features it introduces.  Or
things may simply not work :D

What exactly are you afraid of?  How long have you been using Gentoo
that you've never had to upgrade portage before?

Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.

-a

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

Am 31.07.2011 06:44, schrieb Stroller:
> Hi there,
> 
> I kinda feel I'm opening myself up for ridicule in asking this, but I'm on x86 "stable" (i.e. not ~x86) and this behaviour seems to have changed recently.
> 
> During a recent `emerge --sync` I received the "an update to portage is available - you're strongly advised to take it" message.
> 
> I'm sure that in the past `emerge -u world` would update portage.
> 
> Now:
> 
> # emerge -up world
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]
> 
> # emerge -up system
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.3 [2.0.2]
> 

@system is part of @world, so that is to be expected.

> # emerge -up portage
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> 
> [ebuild     U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.10.3 [2.1.9.42] USE="less%*" 
> 
[...]
>
> What I'm really asking for here is a sanity check:
> Is this the behaviour I should be seeing?
> Was I really seeing `emerge -u world` updating portage before?
> 
> I don't really have a problem with `emerge -u portage` then `emerge -u world`, I'm just wondering if that's right.
> Is there a better way to include portage in my regular maintenance updates?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 

@system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:

> Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.

He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.

"Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem."  :-)

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun 31 July 2011 12:08:01 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
> > Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
> 
> He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading
> portage.
> 
> "Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem."  :-)

It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out 
there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put 
portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the 
package.

The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package 
manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening.

Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano 
and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says 
that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user 
gets to tell the software which one it is.

I don't see a problem.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sunday, July 31 at 12:08 (+0100), Peter Humphrey said:

> On Sunday 31 July 2011 09:54:07 Albert Hopkins wrote:
> 
> > Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem.
> 
> He's asking why upgrading world or system doesn't include upgrading portage.
> 
> "Or perhaps I'm just not understanding the problem."  :-)
> 

Yeah, sorry about that.  I think my understanding was clouded by all the
peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions
of portage.  That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I
read it :P

They OP could have simply said "Hey, when I synced I saw a message that
I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world'
or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package."  Hooray.

Nevertheless, as has already been said, yeah, it appears that system
includes virtual/package-manager and not specifically sys-apps/portage
(how diplomatic), so unless you run emerge with '--deep' or explicitly
update the package name then it won't count.

As for stable vs. unstable... I still don't understand what that has to
do with it.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2011, at 10:02, Florian Philipp wrote:
> ...
> @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
> do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
> add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`

Many thanks!

Perfect answer.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Stroller]

On 31 July 2011, at 13:15, Albert Hopkins wrote:

> Yeah, sorry about that.  I think my understanding was clouded by all the
> peripheral discussion regarding stable/unstable and different versions
> of portage.  That and the fact that I had just gotten out of bed when I
> read it :P
> 
> They OP could have simply said "Hey, when I synced I saw a message that
> I there was a new portage available, but when I run 'emerge -up world'
> or 'emerge -up system' it doesn't show the updated package." 

Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of "you should unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway", as I think I saw that view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really not for me.

I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 / ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago.

I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would be announcing.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Sunday, July 31 at 13:31 (+0100), Stroller said:

> Yeah, I specifically wanted to stave off suggestions of "you should
> unmask the ~86 versions of portage, anyway", as I think I saw that
> view aired fairly robustly in another thread recently and it's really
> not for me.
> 
> I was also quite conscious of this because this seems to be a new
> change for me, but most of the users of this list seem to use ~x86 /
> ~amd64, so will presumably have encountered this change months ago.
> 
> I googled, but I didn't find this change obviously documented
> anywhere. I probably used the wrong keywords, but I'd love to know
> where this *is* documented. It seems like the kinda thing that would
> be announcing.

I've not seen anyone on this list suggest switching to unstable as to
fix a bug, though admittedly I don't follow all threads and even the
ones I do follow I don't follow fully usually as the signal/noise ratio
gets pretty bad over time.

But anyway, this isn't even a bug, just a change of behavior.

Where were you expecting this "announcement".  There usually aren't
announcements on gentoo-user.

However, it is stated in the ChangeLog (which is where you should
alwaysb check first ;-).  Also, there was a change to how portage
handles virtuals, which was also discussed some weeks ago.  But it may
not have been done in stable then.

They also removed flex, bison, and other things from the system profile.
This has broken a few ebuilds (I think I created at least 3 bugs
myself).  Again, there wasn't an "announcement" AFAIK, you just have to
check the ChangeLogs and bugzilla.

Anyway I don't think they "announce" every change they make to portage,
but they do seem to appear in the ChangeLogs.

-a

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote:
> @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If you
> do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself. Just
> add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`

It doesn't try this on my system.

Portage is installed, but not in world:
**
eve ~ # cat /var/lib/portage/world | grep portage
app-portage/eix
app-portage/gentoolkit
app-portage/layman

eve ~ # eix -e portage
[I] sys-apps/portage
     Installed versions:  2.1.10.3(08:42:46 PM 07/30/2011)(ipc less -build -
doc -epydoc -linguas_pl -python2 -python3 -selinux)
     Homepage:            http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/index.xml
     Description:         Portage is the package management and distribution 
system for Gentoo

**
(I removed a few lines from the eix-output to make it better readable)

And "emerge -pv --depclean" ends with:
**
>>> No packages selected for removal by depclean
Packages installed:   1090
Packages in world:    124
Packages in system:   45
Required packages:    1090
Number to remove:     0
**

Am I missing something here?

-- 
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Albert Hopkins]

On Monday, August 1 at 12:41 (+0200), Joost Roeleveld said:

> On Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:02:22 AM Florian Philipp wrote:
> > @system used to contain portage. It doesn't by default, anymore. If
> you
> > do `emerge -pv --depclean`, portage should try to remove itself.
> Just
> > add it to @world by doing `emerge --noreplace portage`
> 
> It doesn't try this on my system

Yeah, I don't think that statement was entirely accurate.  Deplean
"normally" will not try to remove portage, because it satisfies the
virtual/package-manager requirement, which is in @system.

If, however, you have portage and another package satisfying
virtual/package-manager installed, and the other package was in your
world file, but portage wasn't then depclean *would* remove portage.
This is the recent behavior change, which is why some people were
surprised suddenly when nano or less or
insert_your_favorite_virtual_here was suddenly wanting to get unmerged
by --depclean.

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Willie Wong]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out 
> there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put 
> portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the 
> package.
> 
> The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package 
> manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening.
> 
> Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano 
> and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says 
> that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user 
> gets to tell the software which one it is.
> 
> I don't see a problem.

Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with
depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to
keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the
@system sets.)

W
-- 
Willie W. Wong                                     wwong@math.princeton.edu
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire 
         et vice versa   ~~~  I. Newton

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Florian Philipp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1767 bytes --]

Am 03.08.2011 23:44, schrieb Willie Wong:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out 
>> there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put 
>> portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the 
>> package.
>>
>> The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package 
>> manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening.
>>
>> Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano 
>> and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says 
>> that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user 
>> gets to tell the software which one it is.
>>
>> I don't see a problem.
> 
> Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with
> depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to
> keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the
> @system sets.)
> 
> W

I don't really see an issue here. There are lots of packages whose
removal will wreak havok on your system: wget, gcc, python, binutils
etc. Some are part of @system and are therefore protected. For others
like portage there are alternatives which means that AFAIK they cannot
be part of @system. None of these have any protection except that
dependencies will usually prevent their removal by emerge --depclean.

For portage itself, Albert already pointed out that it ought to be
protected from --depclean.

Portage doesn't protect you from shooting yourself in the foot with
`emerge -C foo`. It just tries not to it by itself when you ask it
kindly with `emerge -c foo`. ;)

Regards,
Florian Philipp


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
> > out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did
> > not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not
> > updating the package.
> > 
> > The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred
> > package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will
> > stop happening.
> > 
> > Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and
> > nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package
> > manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as
> > usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one
> > it is.
> > 
> > I don't see a problem.
> 
> Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
> with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
> should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
> (Independently of the @system sets.)

What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage 
could not do that.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Joost Roeleveld]

On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
> > > out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did
> > > not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not
> > > updating the package.
> > > 
> > > The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred
> > > package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will
> > > stop happening.
> > > 
> > > Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and
> > > nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package
> > > manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as
> > > usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one
> > > it is.
> > > 
> > > I don't see a problem.
> > 
> > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
> > with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
> > should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
> > (Independently of the @system sets.)
> 
> What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage
> could not do that.

It would be possible by:
1) emerge paludiis
2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact 
syntax)

This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at least 1 
package manager installed.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Matthew Finkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 AM, Joost Roeleveld <joost@antarean.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly:
> > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager
> > > > out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did
> > > > not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not
> > > > updating the package.
> > > >
> > > > The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred
> > > > package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will
> > > > stop happening.
> > > >
> > > > Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and
> > > > nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package
> > > > manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as
> > > > usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one
> > > > it is.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a problem.
> > >
> > > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
> > > with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
> > > should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
> > > (Independently of the @system sets.)
> >
> > What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage
> > could not do that.
>
> It would be possible by:
> 1) emerge paludiis
> 2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact
> syntax)
>
> This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at
> least 1
> package manager installed.
>
> --
> Joost
>
>
Having something delete/remove itself is always a tricky situation. But in
this context it should be possible. Though package managers are extremely
useful, they are not mandatory and in some (rare) cases one may not be
wanted and there must be a way to appease these environments in such a
situation.  We're talking about GNU/Linux here, the possible uses are
enormous, so the user just needs to understand what they're doing and know
which packages are vital in their system to make sure it continues to
operate as expected.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2831 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage no longer in world?

[Willie Wong]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 12:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself
> > with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it
> > should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide?
> > (Independently of the @system sets.)
> 
> What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage 
> could not do that.

emerge paludis and then use paludis to remove portage?

W
-- 
Willie W. Wong                                     wwong@math.princeton.edu
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire 
         et vice versa   ~~~  I. Newton