[gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Everytime when gentoo introduces a new profile as now 2006.1 there are
some use flag changes. After i switch to the new profile and do an
emerge -uND world there are several packages affected by this changes.
So i normally go through the output and look if there are changes i
did not want and add them to /etc/portage/package.use.
Does anybody know if there is a documentation about this changes and
why they are applied. Until now i found nothing about it. I looked
into the gentoo upgrade guide but found nothing about it. Also the
most recent profile there is 2006.0.

Thanks,

Daniel
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 922 bytes --]

On Saturday 02 September 2006 16:04, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Everytime when gentoo introduces a new profile as now 2006.1 there are
> some use flag changes. After i switch to the new profile and do an
> emerge -uND world there are several packages affected by this changes.
> So i normally go through the output and look if there are changes i
> did not want and add them to /etc/portage/package.use.
> Does anybody know if there is a documentation about this changes and
> why they are applied. Until now i found nothing about it. I looked
> into the gentoo upgrade guide but found nothing about it. Also the
> most recent profile there is 2006.0.

Did you see the previous thread about this today. I don't think there is such 
a document. You could look in the cvs logs though and see if that reveals 
something. Otherwise feel free to ask here as we might be able to explain 
then.

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Dale]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 16:04, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
>   
>> Everytime when gentoo introduces a new profile as now 2006.1 there are
>> some use flag changes. After i switch to the new profile and do an
>> emerge -uND world there are several packages affected by this changes.
>> So i normally go through the output and look if there are changes i
>> did not want and add them to /etc/portage/package.use.
>> Does anybody know if there is a documentation about this changes and
>> why they are applied. Until now i found nothing about it. I looked
>> into the gentoo upgrade guide but found nothing about it. Also the
>> most recent profile there is 2006.0.
>>     
>
> Did you see the previous thread about this today. I don't think there is such 
> a document. You could look in the cvs logs though and see if that reveals 
> something. Otherwise feel free to ask here as we might be able to explain 
> then.
>
>   

I have to agree with this.  We need a mailing list or some kind of
announcement that USE flags are changing and what they are changing
too.  qt has split into qt3 and qt4 from what I have read.  I recently
found out that tkinter has become tk but only after my emerge -e world
failed at pysol because python was emerged without the support.  Thank
goodness for --resume.  

Where does a person go to make this suggestion?  It could be as simple
as a mailing list that we can subscribe to like this one and/or a thread
on the forums that people can subscribe to.  They are making things
better but we need to be informed of what they are changing, especially
something as critical as the USE flags.

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 517 bytes --]

On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:05, b.n. wrote:
> I personally don't understand at all why is not an official document
> posted, just like the GCC or Xorg upgrade guides.
> There should be an official "Upgrade to profile 2006.1 guide", period. I
> would love to write it, but not being a dev I can't.
>
> Too bad, because usually Gentoo documentation is very good.

Actually there is [1]. It just hasn't been updated with 2006.1.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[b.n.]

> Where does a person go to make this suggestion?  It could be as simple
> as a mailing list that we can subscribe to like this one and/or a thread
> on the forums that people can subscribe to.  They are making things
> better but we need to be informed of what they are changing, especially
> something as critical as the USE flags.

I personally don't understand at all why is not an official document 
posted, just like the GCC or Xorg upgrade guides.
There should be an official "Upgrade to profile 2006.1 guide", period. I 
would love to write it, but not being a dev I can't.

Too bad, because usually Gentoo documentation is very good.
m.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Dale]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:05, b.n. wrote:
>   
>> I personally don't understand at all why is not an official document
>> posted, just like the GCC or Xorg upgrade guides.
>> There should be an official "Upgrade to profile 2006.1 guide", period. I
>> would love to write it, but not being a dev I can't.
>>
>> Too bad, because usually Gentoo documentation is very good.
>>     
>
> Actually there is [1]. It just hasn't been updated with 2006.1.
>
> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml
>
>   

I still didn't see where they were telling us what USE flags were being
replaced by what.  I likely have some USE flags that are worthless
because they have been changed.  It seems the only way to find this out
is to wait until a compile fails and track it down.

I would love to have gotten a email that said: " USE tkinter has been
changed to tk.  Please check your make.conf and make changes if
needed."  Real short but at least I would have known that the USE flag
had changed.

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:33, Dale wrote:
> I still didn't see where they were telling us what USE flags were being
> replaced by what.

I have already stated that I don't think that such a thing exists. Now what I 
do is to not change my profile before

# emerge -uvpDNt

doesn't what to emerge anything.  Then immediately after changing the profile 
I run the same command again and that makes it quite clear which use flags 
changed... If I disagree with any of the changes I revert it via USE= 
in /etc/make.conf.

Some quick scripting, however, shows that the difference between 2006.0 and 
2006.1/desktop is as follows:

In 2006.0 but not in 2006.1/desktop:
apache2 apm foomaticdb gtk2 imlib libwww motif xmms

In 2006.1/desktop but not in 2006.0:
cairo cdr dbus dvd dvdr fam firefox hal ldap nptlonly ppds unicode win32codecs

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Dale]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:33, Dale wrote:
>   
>> I still didn't see where they were telling us what USE flags were being
>> replaced by what.
>>     
>
> I have already stated that I don't think that such a thing exists. Now what I 
> do is to not change my profile before
>
> # emerge -uvpDNt
>
> doesn't what to emerge anything.  Then immediately after changing the profile 
> I run the same command again and that makes it quite clear which use flags 
> changed... If I disagree with any of the changes I revert it via USE= 
> in /etc/make.conf.
>
> Some quick scripting, however, shows that the difference between 2006.0 and 
> 2006.1/desktop is as follows:
>
> In 2006.0 but not in 2006.1/desktop:
> apache2 apm foomaticdb gtk2 imlib libwww motif xmms
>
> In 2006.1/desktop but not in 2006.0:
> cairo cdr dbus dvd dvdr fam firefox hal ldap nptlonly ppds unicode win32codecs
>
>   

The fact it doesn't exist is what I was curious about.  It looks like
they could create a list and/or thread on the forums to let us know what
is changing.  I want to get all the current "bugs" worked out before I
start changing profiles.  My emerge -e world after the gcc upgrade is
still in progress and some are not going well.

Thanks for showing the change in USE too.

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/2/06, Dale <teendale@vista-express.com> wrote:
> I have to agree with this.  We need a mailing list or some kind of
> announcement that USE flags are changing and what they are changing
> too.  qt has split into qt3 and qt4 from what I have read.  I recently
> found out that tkinter has become tk but only after my emerge -e world
> failed at pysol because python was emerged without the support.  Thank
> goodness for --resume.

Changes to global useflags are typically suggested and debated on -dev.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/39609/focus=39609

Local use flags (like tkinter) are at the discretion of the
maintainer, and the package ChangeLog should describe why the change
is made and what to do about it.  Or at least give a link to the bug#.

So for global flags, a mail list already exists for this purpose.  For
local flags, I suppose -dev announcements could be made, but I worry
that the volume of useflag-changed spam would be too much, especially
considering that you probably don't care about 90% of the packages in
portage.

Of course, portage tells you what flags have been
added/removed/changed when you do add --pretend and --verbose to your
command ( fex: emerge -DNuvp world )

> Where does a person go to make this suggestion?

bugs.gentoo.org would be the appropriate place.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Peter Ruskin]

On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:16, Dale wrote:
> The fact it doesn't exist is what I was curious about.  It looks
> like they could create a list and/or thread on the forums to let
> us know what is changing.  I want to get all the current "bugs"
> worked out before I start changing profiles.  My emerge -e world
> after the gcc upgrade is still in progress and some are not going
> well.

Same here ;-(

This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1.  This time 
emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko kde-base/kdewebdev 
sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice kde-base/kdemultimedia and 
sci-astronomy/celestia before I gave up and reverted to 3.4.4.

I believe the time for gcc-4.1.1 is not yet right.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.1-r2.		kernel-2.6.17-gentoo-r5.
2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64.		gcc(GCC): 3.4.4.
KDE: 3.5.4.				Qt: 3.3.6.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Dale]

Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Saturday 02 September 2006 23:16, Dale wrote:
>   
>> The fact it doesn't exist is what I was curious about.  It looks
>> like they could create a list and/or thread on the forums to let
>> us know what is changing.  I want to get all the current "bugs"
>> worked out before I start changing profiles.  My emerge -e world
>> after the gcc upgrade is still in progress and some are not going
>> well.
>>     
>
> Same here ;-(
>
> This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1.  This time 
> emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko kde-base/kdewebdev 
> sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice kde-base/kdemultimedia and 
> sci-astronomy/celestia before I gave up and reverted to 3.4.4.
>
> I believe the time for gcc-4.1.1 is not yet right.
>
>   

Oh God.  Now we find this out.  O_O  Oh well.  I have BACK-UPS.  LOL

Dale

:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/2/06, Peter Ruskin <peter.ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1.  This time
> emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko kde-base/kdewebdev
> sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice kde-base/kdemultimedia and
> sci-astronomy/celestia before I gave up and reverted to 3.4.4.

Could you file bugs on each of these with your errors?  Also, it is
probably useful to try building the ~arch version of each package.  It
seems that some of the gcc-4.1 fixes are still in ~arch versions.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/2/06, Dale <teendale@vista-express.com> wrote:
> Good points but would it be that many changes?

Well, I don't know.  But what info would the mail list or forum thread
give you that --verbose --pretend doesn't?  Or stated another way,
what information are you missing that you are looking for?

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Peter Ruskin]

On Sunday 03 September 2006 03:37, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Peter Ruskin <peter.ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1.  This
> > time emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko kde-base/kdewebdev
> > sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice kde-base/kdemultimedia
> > and sci-astronomy/celestia before I gave up and reverted to
> > 3.4.4.
>
> Could you file bugs on each of these with your errors?  

I'm still doing emerge -e world after reverting to 3.4.4.  When that 
is done I will look in the emerge logs and report the errors.  I 
have over 1000 ebuilds installed and have spent over two days on 
this to get back to square 1 - (for the second time).  It'll be 
some time before I listen to people saying "gcc-4.1.1 is stable" 
again.

> Also, it is probably useful to try building the ~arch version of
> each package.  It seems that some of the gcc-4.1 fixes are still
> in ~arch versions.

Yes, I had already found those.  The ones I said failed were the 
latest versions on ~x86.

Thanks for your response.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.1-r2.		kernel-2.6.17-gentoo-r5.
2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64.		gcc(GCC): 3.4.4.
KDE: 3.5.4.				Qt: 3.3.6.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1042 bytes --]

On Sunday 03 September 2006 12:33, b.n. wrote:

> By the way, I have a doubt. The 2006.1 profile migration must be done:
> a) before GCC/glibc upgrade
> b) after GCC/glibc upgrade
> c) whatever, it doesn't matter

I would say best you follow (a).  There are clearly different default USE 
flags which impact 'emerge -epv world', although I can't recall much of a 
difference in the output of 'emerge -epv system'.

While on this topic, I am half way through remerging world and many GUI 
aspects (e.g. font and font size, KDE widgets, Kmail, etc.) have been borked 
badly on Fluxbox and KDE on my laptop.  :-(

I hope that such problems will be gone by the time the whole of world is 
remerged.  I am thinking to just emerge -epv system only and *not* world on 
another box of mine.  Would that be OK?  What do I need to revedep-rebuild 
afterward?  The gcc guide mentions revdep-rebuild --library libstdc++.so.5, 
is that still the case for gcc-4.1, or should I also/instead revdep 
libstdc++.so.6?
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[b.n.]

Richard Fish wrote:

> Could you file bugs on each of these with your errors?  Also, it is
> probably useful to try building the ~arch version of each package.  It
> seems that some of the gcc-4.1 fixes are still in ~arch versions.

Ah, the mystery of why are things marked stable...
If fixes for 4.1.1 are in ~arch, why is 4.1.1 in arch?

Sigh. Anyway it'll be a month at least before I have time to upgrade 
gcc. I still have to switch to modular X. I hope worst glitches will be 
ironed out in the meantime.

By the way, I have a doubt. The 2006.1 profile migration must be done:
a) before GCC/glibc upgrade
b) after GCC/glibc upgrade
c) whatever, it doesn't matter


thanks!

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Peter Ruskin]

On Sunday 03 September 2006 03:37, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Peter Ruskin <peter.ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1.  This
> > time emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko kde-base/kdewebdev
> > sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice kde-base/kdemultimedia
> > and sci-astronomy/celestia before I gave up and reverted to
> > 3.4.4.
>
> Could you file bugs on each of these with your errors?  Also, it
> is probably useful to try building the ~arch version of each
> package.  It seems that some of the gcc-4.1 fixes are still in
> ~arch versions.
>
OpenOffice failure was due to my running out of disk space. the 
others have been reported:

#146126 sys-fs/dazuko
#146127 kde-base/kdewebdev
#146128 sys-apps/busybox
#146134 kde-base/kdemultimedia
#146136 sci-astronomy/celestia

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.1-r2.		kernel-2.6.17-gentoo-r5.
2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64.		gcc(GCC): 3.4.4.
KDE: 3.5.4.				Qt: 3.3.6.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/3/06, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
> remerged.  I am thinking to just emerge -epv system only and *not* world on
> another box of mine.  Would that be OK?  What do I need to revedep-rebuild
> afterward?

The revdep-rebuild with libstdc++.so.5 was strictly for the 3.3 to 3.4
upgrade.  Assuming you are already on 3.4, you should not have
anything linked to libstdc++.so.5 to begin with...

Still, you could do an "emerge -e system; revdep-rebuild --library
libstdc++.so.6" upgrade to a system.  It is essentially what I did
with my boxes to upgrade to 4.1.  However, it is not officially
recommended, and others reported problems with partial recompiles back
when 4.1 first hit ~arch, so emerge -e world is still your safest
option.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/3/06, b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, the mystery of why are things marked stable...
> If fixes for 4.1.1 are in ~arch, why is 4.1.1 in arch?

For the benefit of the (hopefully, vast majority of) users not
affected by this.  It should only be a few, seldom-used packages that
have this problem.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Daniel Pielmeier]

> I have already stated that I don't think that such a thing exists. Now what I 
> do is to not change my profile before
> 
> # emerge -uvpDNt
> 
> doesn't what to emerge anything.  Then immediately after changing the profile 
> I run the same command again and that makes it quite clear which use flags 
> changed... If I disagree with any of the changes I revert it via USE= 
> in /etc/make.conf.
> 
> Some quick scripting, however, shows that the difference between 2006.0 and 
> 2006.1/desktop is as follows:
> 
> In 2006.0 but not in 2006.1/desktop:
> apache2 apm foomaticdb gtk2 imlib libwww motif xmms
> 
> In 2006.1/desktop but not in 2006.0:
> cairo cdr dbus dvd dvdr fam firefox hal ldap nptlonly ppds unicode win32codecs

Sorry for posting so late to my own thread. I just wanted to know why
these changes were applied and if this is documented somewhere, but this
does not seem to be the case?

So as usual did my emerge -uDN world then switched to the new profile
and run a emerge -pvuND world again. I looked at the output and where i
did not agree with the output i changed this in /etc/make.conf or
/etc/portage/package.use.

Thanks for all your commnts,

Daniel

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/4/06, b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't get it. A given arch system should be self consistent. An ~arch
> system in theory should be too, but being testing I understand it can not.
> The purpose of being on arch should be "having a self consistent system
> within itself" not "having a mostly working bunch of packages". The few,
> seldom-used packages could be the *critical* packages for a given user
> (I think to some scientific packages, for example... not many use them,
> but they can be the very reason to have Linux for someone) Shouldn't all
> stable packages being tested with a given compiler before that compiler
> becomes stable?

In an ideal world, yes.  But it isn't an ideal world, and the
expectation that nothing in the "stable" tree will ever break is just
not something that can be satisfied [1].

Also, the gcc and release enginering teams have stated quite
emphatically that they are not going to hold up progress on their
projects just because other (typically maintainer-wanted) projects are
not keeping up.  [2] & [3]

There is a debate (argument?, flame war?) going on between devs about
exactly how much notice was given in advance of gcc _moving_ to
stable, but the package maintainers did have 2 months between gcc 4.1
entering ~arch and it moving to stable to fix their problems and move
the fixed versions to stable.

So in the end, arch users are in much the same position as ~arch,
except hopefully your incidences of breakage are much more rare.  And
IMO, you also get the right to bitch about it...but only if you also
report the problems on bugs.gentoo.org! ;-)

And of course, Gentoo comes with a lifetime guarantee of complete
satisfaction or your money back.  :-P

-Richard

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15036.html
[2] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15043.html
[3] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg15044.html
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[b.n.]

Richard Fish wrote:
> On 9/3/06, b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ah, the mystery of why are things marked stable...
>> If fixes for 4.1.1 are in ~arch, why is 4.1.1 in arch?
> 
> For the benefit of the (hopefully, vast majority of) users not
> affected by this.  It should only be a few, seldom-used packages that
> have this problem.

I don't get it. A given arch system should be self consistent. An ~arch 
system in theory should be too, but being testing I understand it can not.
The purpose of being on arch should be "having a self consistent system 
within itself" not "having a mostly working bunch of packages". The few, 
seldom-used packages could be the *critical* packages for a given user 
(I think to some scientific packages, for example... not many use them, 
but they can be the very reason to have Linux for someone) Shouldn't all 
stable packages being tested with a given compiler before that compiler 
becomes stable?


m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[b.n.]

> In an ideal world, yes.  But it isn't an ideal world, and the
> expectation that nothing in the "stable" tree will ever break is just
> not something that can be satisfied [1].

Yes, I know :)

> Also, the gcc and release enginering teams have stated quite
> emphatically that they are not going to hold up progress on their
> projects just because other (typically maintainer-wanted) projects are
> not keeping up.  [2] & [3]

> There is a debate (argument?, flame war?) going on between devs about
> exactly how much notice was given in advance of gcc _moving_ to
> stable, but the package maintainers did have 2 months between gcc 4.1
> entering ~arch and it moving to stable to fix their problems and move
> the fixed versions to stable.

Absolutely right. But at this point shouldn't the non-tested package be 
moved to ~arch? Or at the very beginning of major GCC upgrade processes 
(like 3.3-->3.4 or 3.4-->4.1), should there be some automatic advice 
that "the following packages on your world have NOT been tested with the 
GCC/glibc/kernel/whatever version you're trying to switch to, are you 
sure to switch?"
(Ok, maybe I should personally work on it... if only I had time,sigh)

> So in the end, arch users are in much the same position as ~arch,
> except hopefully your incidences of breakage are much more rare.  And
> IMO, you also get the right to bitch about it...but only if you also
> report the problems on bugs.gentoo.org! ;-)

That's something I usually do :) ,it's the minimum.

> And of course, Gentoo comes with a lifetime guarantee of complete
> satisfaction or your money back.  :-P

Well, right. I love gentoo, but as any significant other sometimes has 
its quirks :)

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/5/06, b.n. <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:
> Absolutely right. But at this point shouldn't the non-tested package be
> moved to ~arch? Or at the very beginning of major GCC upgrade processes
> (like 3.3-->3.4 or 3.4-->4.1), should there be some automatic advice
> that "the following packages on your world have NOT been tested with the
> GCC/glibc/kernel/whatever version you're trying to switch to, are you
> sure to switch?"

The problem is there is no such database of "this was tested and
works/doesn't work".  The closest is bugzilla, with the blocking bugs
on the gcc stabilization bug.  But that only tells you what was tested
and found to be broken, not what was tested and found to work.

I don't think moving the known-broken packages to ~arch would be a
good idea, as someone could just decide to stick with the previous
version of gcc.  Moving the packages to ~arch would force such users
to unmask the package to keep using it, even if they do not upgrade
gcc.

However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
make it to stable.  That way at least the stabilization bug will
continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
through.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 426 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 00:35, Richard Fish wrote:
> However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
> that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
> make it to stable.  That way at least the stabilization bug will
> continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
> through.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140707

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

Richard Fish wrote:
> However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
> that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
> make it to stable.  That way at least the stabilization bug will
> continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
> through.

Try to come up with a different solution, I don't want fixed bugs
clogging up my view of real, open ones. Perhaps a keyword like Testing
or so.

Thanks,
Donnie


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/6/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 00:35, Richard Fish wrote:
> > However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
> > that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
> > make it to stable. That way at least the stabilization bug will
> > continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
> > through.
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140707

Right, although I think this bug is also applicable, since there was
no 4.0 that was stable:

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=117482

This one shows many bugs that were closed as soon as the fixes were
committed to CVS, and as 140707 shows, many of the fixes just needed
to be moved from ~arch to arch.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/6/06, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Richard Fish wrote:
> > However, for the next gcc-upgrade cycle, I plan to ask (as a userrep)
> > that the gcc compilation bugs not be closed until the fixes actually
> > make it to stable.  That way at least the stabilization bug will
> > continue to reflect just how broken the tree might get if it is pushed
> > through.
>
> Try to come up with a different solution, I don't want fixed bugs
> clogging up my view of real, open ones. Perhaps a keyword like Testing
> or so.

Yeah, I know that is going to be a significant complaint with this
idea, and I'm hoping to have a better revision of it.  Maybe re-assign
the bug to arch testers, or some other holding account, after you are
done with it.  That way it wouldn't clutter your assigned bug list,
but also continues to reflect open status for the tracker bug[s].

I just think that too many things in the stable tree broke in this
upgrade, so we should try something different next time.  Ironically,
I think ~arch users probably had fewer issues overall when they
upgraded to 4.1!  I'm assuming of course that had the gcc team and
others known how much things would break by stabilizing 4.1 that a
bigger push would have been made to clean things up before-hand.

In fact, I think the model that you used for the modular-X porting
effort was great (and probably also took great effort :-).  You didn't
just file bugs and let them rot, you continued hounding people to fix
things on -dev, with frequent updates of just how broken things were,
and how much (or little) progress was being made.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/6/06, Richard Fish <bigfish@asmallpond.org> wrote:
> Ironically, I think ~arch users probably had fewer issues overall when they upgraded to 4.1!

BTW, I also think the ~arch users (which includes me, so I'll take my
lumps too) let the rest of Gentoo down.  The fact that 1/3rd of the
bugs on 140707 were filed *after* 4.1 went stable is indicative of
this.  A few ~arch users building the stable versions of all their
installed packages in a chroot environment might have helped.

-Richard
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1796 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 01:48, Richard Fish wrote:
> I'm assuming of course that had the gcc team and
> others known how much things would break by stabilizing 4.1 that a
> bigger push would have been made to clean things up before-hand.

I believe the reason why gcc-4.1.1 was stabilized knowing that at least 75 
packages still needed to be stabilized in order to compile with gcc-4.1.1 was 
that release engineering didn't want to delay the release even further 
because of maintainers who didn't respond to stabilization requests in a 
timely manner.

They had to stabilize it before releasing 2006.1. Otherwise everyone who 
installed from that release would end up with a lot of broken keywords after 
the first sync.

The positive thing about this is that everyone who installs from release 
2006.1 won't have to go through the whole gcc upgrade procedure because it 
ships with 4.1.1. The cost was that some users of stable who chose to upgrade 
as soon as gcc-4.1.1 was stabilized had some extra hazzle with recompiling 
the system and those who find themselves unable to search bugzilla filed a 
lot of dupes.

The one thing that I think they could have done to make it easier was to refer 
everyone to the gcc-4.1.x stabilization tracker [1] in the announcements on 
gwn and warn that there were still a bunch of packages that needed to be 
stabilized in order to make a clean upgrade possible.

That way users would be able to make an informed decision about when to 
upgrade to gcc-4.1.1 and would have known where to look for known 
stabilization bugs. Yet the new users who install from the 2006.1 release 
wouldn't have issues with broken keywords after the first sync.

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140707

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1080 bytes --]

On Thursday 07 September 2006 02:26, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> The cost was that some users of stable who chose to upgrade
> as soon as gcc-4.1.1 was stabilized had some extra hazzle with recompiling
> the system and those who find themselves unable to search bugzilla filed a
> lot of dupes.

One more thing that I would like to add is that if a user want a rock solid, 
stable system from a source based distro like Gentoo then he should know that 
stuff like gcc is so important that he should wait till it has been stable 
for at least 3 weeks before making the upgrade. That way others will handle 
most of the issues that are going to be there with such a major upgrade.

It really is a misunderstanding to expect that you can upgrade your system 
everyday without occasionally running into issues. Even for stable users. 
That said if anyone wants to improve quality of the stable branch of Gentoo 
they should try to become an arch tester and start helping out [1].

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/x86/arch-testers-faq.xml

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/6/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> The one thing that I think they could have done to make it easier was to refer
> everyone to the gcc-4.1.x stabilization tracker [1] in the announcements on
> gwn and warn that there were still a bunch of packages that needed to be
> stabilized in order to make a clean upgrade possible.

Yeah, I agree.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Richard Fish]

On 9/6/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> wrote:
> On Thursday 07 September 2006 01:48, Richard Fish wrote:
> > I'm assuming of course that had the gcc team and
> > others known how much things would break by stabilizing 4.1 that a
> > bigger push would have been made to clean things up before-hand.
>
> I believe the reason why gcc-4.1.1 was stabilized knowing that at least 75
> packages still needed to be stabilized in order to compile with gcc-4.1.1 was
> that release engineering didn't want to delay the release even further
> because of maintainers who didn't respond to stabilization requests in a
> timely manner.

I guess I'll just make one more point as well.  I don't have any issue
with the idea that some breakage is acceptable in order to push Gentoo
forwards.  A policy of _never_ breaking the tree would cause Gentoo to
stagnate, even more than some claim it already has.  I would just
prefer more noise be made in advance.

-Richard

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo 2006.1 profile and use flag changes

[Peter Ruskin]

On Sunday 03 September 2006 15:07, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > On 9/2/06, Peter Ruskin <peter.ruskin@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> > > This is the second time I've tried updating gcc to 4.1.1. 
> > > This time emerge -e world failed on sys-fs/dazuko
> > > kde-base/kdewebdev sys-apps/busybox app-office/openoffice
> > > kde-base/kdemultimedia and sci-astronomy/celestia before I
> > > gave up and reverted to 3.4.4.
> >
Success at last!  This is how I upgraded this time:

 # gcc-config i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1
 # source /etc/profile
 # fix_libtool_files.sh 3.4.4      (missed this step the last time)
 # emerge --oneshot -av libtool    (missed this step the last time)
 # emerge -e system
 # emerge -e world
 # emerge -C =sys-devel/gcc-3.4.4  (missed this step the last time)

During the course of that I had to add many ebuilds 
to /etc/portage/package.keywords as ~x86.

A further surprise was that, after a reboot, X couldn't start 
because the nvidia module failed to load (incorrect module format 
was the message, I think).  Some other modules failed to load too.  
I had to rebuild my kernel with the new toolchain, reboot and all 
was OK again.

I think a reminder to rebuild the kernel ought to go in the upgrade 
guide.

I've been using Gentoo over four years now but this is the most 
difficult upgrade I've experienced.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.1.1_rc1-r6.	kernel-2.6.17-gentoo-r5.
2006 i686 AMD Athlon(tm) 64.		gcc(GCC): 4.1.1.
KDE: 3.5.4.				Qt: 3.3.6.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list