[gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge, it's saying me
> it needs an update of portage itself.
> In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162 today)...
>
> Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo and an other...
>
> what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la pelle" (french
> expression).

emerge -al1 portage

(Note the "l" option.)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Stéphane Guedon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge, it's
> > saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
> > In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162 today)...
> > 
> > Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo and an
> > other...
> > 
> > what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la pelle"
> > (french expression).
> 
> emerge -al1 portage
> 
> (Note the "l" option.)

today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
-- 
Stéphane Guedon
page web : http://www.22decembre.eu/
carte de visite : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.vcf
clé publique gpg : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.asc

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge, it's
> > > saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
> > > In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162 today)...
> > > 
> > > Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo and an
> > > other...
> > > 
> > > what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la pelle"
> > > (french expression).
> > 
> > emerge -al1 portage
> > 
> > (Note the "l" option.)
> 
> today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !

Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?

If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable" versions.

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Stéphane Guedon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1327 bytes --]

On Monday 13 September 2010 20:28:07 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > > Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge,
> > > > it's
> > > > saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
> > > > In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162
> > > > today)...
> > > > 
> > > > Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo
> > > > and an
> > > > other...
> > > > 
> > > > what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la
> > > > pelle"
> > > > (french expression).
> > > 
> > > emerge -al1 portage
> > > 
> > > (Note the "l" option.)
> > 
> > today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
> 
> Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?
> 
> If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable" versions.
> 
> --
> Joost

yes, of course... but... one release per day ? strange isn't it ?

-- 
Stéphane Guedon
page web : http://www.22decembre.eu/
carte de visite : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.vcf
clé publique gpg : http://www.22decembre.eu/downloads/Stephane-Guedon.asc

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Monday 13 September 2010 20:37:13 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:28:07 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > > On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > > > Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge,
> > > > > it's
> > > > > saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
> > > > > In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162
> > > > > today)...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo
> > > > > and an
> > > > > other...
> > > > > 
> > > > > what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la
> > > > > pelle"
> > > > > (french expression).
> > > > 
> > > > emerge -al1 portage
> > > > 
> > > > (Note the "l" option.)
> > > 
> > > today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
> > 
> > Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?
> > 
> > If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable"
> > versions.
> > 
> > --
> > Joost
> 
> yes, of course... but... one release per day ? strange isn't it ?

I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on unstable.
I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I really need that 
version.

I wouldn't be surprised to have to upgrade a substantial set of packages on a 
daily basis with that setting.

Why do you specify you want the latest versions and then get surprised when 
you get new updates on a daily basis?

--
Joost

[gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 09/13/2010 09:37 PM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:28:07 J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>>> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>> On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>>>>> Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge,
>>>>> it's
>>>>> saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
>>>>> In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162
>>>>> today)...
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo
>>>>> and an
>>>>> other...
>>>>>
>>>>> what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la
>>>>> pelle"
>>>>> (french expression).
>>>>
>>>> emerge -al1 portage
>>>>
>>>> (Note the "l" option.)
>>>
>>> today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
>>
>> Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?
>>
>> If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable" versions.
>>
>> --
>> Joost
>
> yes, of course... but... one release per day ? strange isn't it ?

No, not really.  Developers push fixes for problems reported in 
bugs.gentoo.org and ask the users to test whether the fixes work as 
expected.  It's normal that this can result in very fast version updates.

And as said previously, the "-l" option of emerge will tell you why an 
update was pushed into portage.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Dale]

Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:28:07 J. Roeleveld wrote:
>    
>> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>>      
>>> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge,
>>>>> it's
>>>>> saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
>>>>> In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162
>>>>> today)...
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo
>>>>> and an
>>>>> other...
>>>>>
>>>>> what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la
>>>>> pelle"
>>>>> (french expression).
>>>>>            
>>>> emerge -al1 portage
>>>>
>>>> (Note the "l" option.)
>>>>          
>>> today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
>>>        
>> Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?
>>
>> If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable" versions.
>>
>> --
>> Joost
>>      
> yes, of course... but... one release per day ? strange isn't it ?
>
>    

That's not to strange.  I have seen this with other packages before.  
Keep in mind, portage is maintained by Gentoo devs so they could release 
a version, see something that isn't working quite like they want, make 
some changes and push them out for upgrades.  I would much rather them 
do that than wait a couple days while people are using a "buggy" 
package.  Only thing worse is to upgrade, then downgrade, wait a few 
days and have to upgrade again.

My $0.02 worth.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> [...]
> I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on unstable.
> I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I really need that
> version.

Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or 
full testing (aka "unstable").  Mixing usually makes things worse.  I 
used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that 
this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch 
packages breaking with arch ones.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >> [...]
> > 
> > I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on
> > unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I
> > really need that version.
> 
> Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or
> full testing (aka "unstable").  Mixing usually makes things worse.  I
> used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that
> this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch
> packages breaking with arch ones.

This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to 
unmask these.
I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable.

What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is:
=games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64
=games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64
=app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64
=app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64

These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I 
wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that 
one has become stable since.

I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable".

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 21:13 on Monday 13 September 2010, J. 
Roeleveld did opine thusly:

> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > >> [...]
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on
> > > unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I
> > > really need that version.
> > 
> > Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or
> > full testing (aka "unstable").  Mixing usually makes things worse.  I
> > used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that
> > this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch
> > packages breaking with arch ones.
> 
> This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to
> unmask these.
> I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable.
> 
> What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is:
> =games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64
> =games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64
> 
> These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I
> wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that
> one has become stable since.
> 
> I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable".

File a stabilization request at bugs.gentoo.org

If it's sufficiently tested, and there are no outstanding big bugs on the 
package, and if the arch maintainers agree, the devs will move the package to 
stable.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Alan McKinnon]

Apparently, though unproven, at 20:37 on Monday 13 September 2010, Stéphane 
Guedon did opine thusly:

> On Monday 13 September 2010 20:28:07 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Monday 13 September 2010 20:15:24 Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > On Monday 13 September 2010 21:06:48 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > > > On 09/13/2010 09:15 AM, Stéphane Guedon wrote:
> > > > > Since few days ( two or three ?), every time I launch emerge,
> > > > > it's
> > > > > saying me it needs an update of portage itself.
> > > > > In plus, I have upgraded udev at least two times (160>161>162
> > > > > today)...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Plus, I have had two warning message concerning updates : sudo
> > > > > and an
> > > > > other...
> > > > > 
> > > > > what's going on ? Is somebody founding security holes "à la
> > > > > pelle"
> > > > > (french expression).
> > > > 
> > > > emerge -al1 portage
> > > > 
> > > > (Note the "l" option.)
> > > 
> > > today, one more ! portage to the 2.1.9.4 if I remember exactly !
> > 
> > Do you have "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS" set to something starting with a "~..."?
> > 
> > If yes, then you can expect regular updates to further "unstable"
> > versions.
> > 
> > --
> > Joost
> 
> yes, of course... but... one release per day ? strange isn't it ?


You are no a software developer, right?

Zac fixes one bug a day.
You get one update a day.

How is this unusual? Note I say "unusual" not "unfamiliar to you"


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: what's going on with updates ?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 09/13/2010 10:13 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2010 21:00:42 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> On 09/13/2010 09:45 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> I wouldn't expect people to run a Gentoo system with all packages on
>>> unstable. I tend to only select specific packages as unstable when I
>>> really need that version.
>>
>> Usually the best "stability" is reached by running either full stable or
>> full testing (aka "unstable").  Mixing usually makes things worse.  I
>> used to run a mixed system, but at some point it was clear to me that
>> this fscks things up quite often due to package versions whether ~arch
>> packages breaking with arch ones.
>
> This is true, but not all packages I want are in stable, this forces me to
> unmask these.
> I also don't always want to wait for packages to become stable.
>
> What I currently have in "/etc/portage/package.keywords is:
> =games-strategy/x2-1.4.05 ~amd64
> =games-strategy/x3-2.5.01 ~amd64
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-bin-3.2.8 ~amd64
> =app-emulation/virtualbox-modules-3.2.8 ~amd64
>
> These don't have a large set of additional requirements. If they did, I
> wouldn't have upgraded to these. I also had "qt-creator" in there, but that
> one has become stable since.
>
> I'm still not clear how versions can be made to be marked "stable".

After they go into testing and stay there for a month or two, someone 
makes a request to put it into stable.  AFAIK, this request can also be 
automated.

The person putting it into stable is then required to sanity check the 
package whether it can work with the rest of stable packages, since they 
differ from the testing ones.

And that step is what makes a fully ~arch system more reliable then a 
mixed one; because the package is known to work in an ~arch system, but 
it's not known whether it works OK in a stable one.  It's also a reason 
why many devs don't accept bug reports if you're using an ~arch package 
in a stable system; it's just too random and problems are expected. 
With Gentoo, a stable system is supposed to work (obviously).  An ~arch 
system is also supposed to work (note that "testing" doesn't mean 
"broken"; I try to avoid the term "unstable" when I refer to ~arch, 
"testing" is the term that accurately describes what ~arch is.) But a 
mixed system is not supposed to work ("not supposed" meaning no one is 
trying to make it work or even testing it.)