[gentoo-user] acct-group packages ??

[gentoo-user] acct-group packages ??

[Ian Zimmerman]

After latest webrsync, portage wants to install these:

acct-group/input-0
acct-group/kvm-0
acct-group/render-0

No other package seems to depend on them, so wth is this about?

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Re: [gentoo-user] acct-group packages ??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:30:14 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> After latest webrsync, portage wants to install these:
> 
> acct-group/input-0
> acct-group/kvm-0
> acct-group/render-0
> 
> No other package seems to depend on them, so wth is this about?

It seems odd that portage would want to install packages that weren't a
dependency of something else. They are here, for example

% emerge -cpv acct-group/kvm

Calculating dependencies... done!
  acct-group/kvm-0 pulled in by:
    acct-user/qemu-0 requires acct-group/kvm
    app-emulation/qemu-4.0.0-r4 requires acct-group/kvm
    sys-apps/systemd-243_rc1-r1 requires acct-group/kvm


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!!

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] acct-group packages ??

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 907 bytes --]

On Saturday, 3 August 2019 18:21:55 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 09:30:14 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> > After latest webrsync, portage wants to install these:
> > 
> > acct-group/input-0
> > acct-group/kvm-0
> > acct-group/render-0
> > 
> > No other package seems to depend on them, so wth is this about?
> 
> It seems odd that portage would want to install packages that weren't a
> dependency of something else. They are here, for example
> 
> % emerge -cpv acct-group/kvm
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
>   acct-group/kvm-0 pulled in by:
>     acct-user/qemu-0 requires acct-group/kvm
>     app-emulation/qemu-4.0.0-r4 requires acct-group/kvm
>     sys-apps/systemd-243_rc1-r1 requires acct-group/kvm

It's a tidying up exercise to make sure the correct system groups and user 
accounts are configured/cleaned up:

https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0081.html

-- 
Regards,

Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2019-08-03 18:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> It seems odd that portage would want to install packages that weren't
> a dependency of something else. They are here, for example
> 
> % emerge -cpv acct-group/kvm
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
>   acct-group/kvm-0 pulled in by:
>     acct-user/qemu-0 requires acct-group/kvm
>     app-emulation/qemu-4.0.0-r4 requires acct-group/kvm
>     sys-apps/systemd-243_rc1-r1 requires acct-group/kvm

I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of
updating a package and not bumping its version.  In my case, eudev.

> I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!!

;-)

-- 
Please don't Cc: me privately on mailing lists and Usenet,
if you also post the followup to the list or newsgroup.
To reply privately _only_ on Usenet and on broken lists
which rewrite From, fetch the TXT record for no-use.mooo.com.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 481 bytes --]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of
> updating a package and not bumping its version.  In my case, eudev.

I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did not
result in differences in the installed files, there was no need for a
version bump. This avoids needless recompiling of packages.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't put all your hypes in one home page.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 8/5/19 3:21 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:59:06 -0700, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> 
>> I see, I got caught (again) by the favorite gentoo sleight of hand of
>> updating a package and not bumping its version.  In my case, eudev.
> 
> I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did not
> result in differences in the installed files, there was no need for a
> version bump. This avoids needless recompiling of packages.
> 

Realistically, almost all ebuild changes should incur a new revision. I
would much rather recompile 100 packages *and have it work* than compile
10 packages and have it crash three times requiring manual intervention
because the tree is so screwed up.

We have better guidelines these days:

https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions

but they still give developers too much freedom to be lazy and commit
important changes without a revision. The "straight to stable" advice
contradicts our existing stabilization policy, and the USE flag advice
says that you can rely on a non-default, portage-only feature to prevent
breakage.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: acct-group packages ??

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1516 bytes --]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:17:17 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> > I've not checked lately, but policy was that if an ebuild change did
> > not result in differences in the installed files, there was no need
> > for a version bump. This avoids needless recompiling of packages.
> >   
> 
> Realistically, almost all ebuild changes should incur a new revision. I
> would much rather recompile 100 packages *and have it work* than compile
> 10 packages and have it crash three times requiring manual intervention
> because the tree is so screwed up.
> 
> We have better guidelines these days:
> 
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/ebuild-revisions
> 
> but they still give developers too much freedom to be lazy and commit
> important changes without a revision. The "straight to stable" advice
> contradicts our existing stabilization policy, and the USE flag advice
> says that you can rely on a non-default, portage-only feature to prevent
> breakage.

That's pretty much how I remember it. If the existing version crash, then
the binaries have changed so it should be bumped, but if a dev missed out
a new DEPEND for chromium of libreoffice that I happen to have already
installed, I don't want to have to waste hours of CPU time recompiling to
exactly the same end point.

The most important statement in the policy is also the hardest to enforce
"Developers are encouraged to use common sense" :-O


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What is a "free" gift ? Aren't all gifts free?

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]