[gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Allan Spagnol Comar]

it is necessary to make any changes to get the packages from version
2005.1 while using 2005.0.

I read somewhere that we should change the symlink /etc/make.profile
to the new 2005.1 profile and resync, I dided and after sync there
where no updates for my system. Is this right ?

Thank you, Allan

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[A. Khattri]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Allan Spagnol Comar wrote:

> it is necessary to make any changes to get the packages from version
> 2005.1 while using 2005.0.
>
> I read somewhere that we should change the symlink /etc/make.profile
> to the new 2005.1 profile and resync, I dided and after sync there
> where no updates for my system. Is this right ?

If you've been keeping your system up-to-date then that's right.

-- 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Holly Bostick]

Allan Spagnol Comar schreef:
> it is necessary to make any changes to get the packages from version
> 2005.1 while using 2005.0.
> 
> I read somewhere that we should change the symlink /etc/make.profile
> to the new 2005.1 profile and resync, I dided and after sync there
> where no updates for my system. Is this right ?
> 
Probably, assuming that you normally keep your packages up to date.

Profiles mean "nothing"-- insofar as portage doesn't "divide" packages
based on profile. In other words, it's not as if baselayout 1.11.13 is
only available to the 2005.1 profile, while the 2005.0 profile can only
have 1.9.4-r6 or something. Portage does sometimes disable or enable
certain USE flags based on profile, but this is unlikely to be a big
issue unless you're changing to a completely different profile (i.e.,
from default x86 to selinux or something). And in any case, the profile
is regularly incrementally updated, most likely to reflect critical
updates (ever notice that "Performing Global Updates" that Portage
sometimes delays your emerge with?).

The profile is really only an issue on initial install. After that, it's
fairly irrelevant to daily life (until Portage flatly says to upgrade it
as the old profiles are unsupported-- most likely meaning that they will
not be updated to reflect "things we know now that we didn't know when
we designed the old profile"). But otherwise, I'm sure there's still a
couple of people around here with the 1.4 profile, and definitely some
with a 2004 profile-- because the profile "name" is not particularly
important once Gentoo is actually up and running.

So it's not that you got "bad" advice, but I would say that "we *should*
change the profile symlink" is probably too strong a term, as far as
advice goes. If you really, really have to change the profile, Portage
will tell you to do so; otherwise it's just cosmetic.

As far as I know :-) .

Holly

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

RE: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Michael Kintzios]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: A. Khattri [mailto:ajai@bway.net] 
> Sent: 10 August 2005 15:04
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, Allan Spagnol Comar wrote:
> 
> > it is necessary to make any changes to get the packages from version
> > 2005.1 while using 2005.0.
> >
> > I read somewhere that we should change the symlink /etc/make.profile
> > to the new 2005.1 profile and resync, I dided and after sync there
> > where no updates for my system. Is this right ?
> 
> If you've been keeping your system up-to-date then that's right.

Because the 2005.0/1 refers to profile defaults, not package versions.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Eugene Rosenzweig]

Holly Bostick wrote:

>Allan Spagnol Comar schreef:
>  
>
>>it is necessary to make any changes to get the packages from version
>>2005.1 while using 2005.0.
>>
>>I read somewhere that we should change the symlink /etc/make.profile
>>to the new 2005.1 profile and resync, I dided and after sync there
>>where no updates for my system. Is this right ?
>>
>>    
>>
>Probably, assuming that you normally keep your packages up to date.
>
>Profiles mean "nothing"-- insofar as portage doesn't "divide" packages
>based on profile. In other words, it's not as if baselayout 1.11.13 is
>only available to the 2005.1 profile, while the 2005.0 profile can only
>have 1.9.4-r6 or something. Portage does sometimes disable or enable
>certain USE flags based on profile, but this is unlikely to be a big
>issue unless you're changing to a completely different profile (i.e.,
>from default x86 to selinux or something). And in any case, the profile
>is regularly incrementally updated, most likely to reflect critical
>updates (ever notice that "Performing Global Updates" that Portage
>sometimes delays your emerge with?).
>
>The profile is really only an issue on initial install. After that, it's
>fairly irrelevant to daily life (until Portage flatly says to upgrade it
>as the old profiles are unsupported-- most likely meaning that they will
>not be updated to reflect "things we know now that we didn't know when
>we designed the old profile"). But otherwise, I'm sure there's still a
>couple of people around here with the 1.4 profile, and definitely some
>with a 2004 profile-- because the profile "name" is not particularly
>important once Gentoo is actually up and running.
>
>So it's not that you got "bad" advice, but I would say that "we *should*
>change the profile symlink" is probably too strong a term, as far as
>advice goes. If you really, really have to change the profile, Portage
>will tell you to do so; otherwise it's just cosmetic.
>
>As far as I know :-) .
>
>Holly
>  
>
Just to add, /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.1/packages vs 
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/packages it is not that 
different anyway. Not that's that any indication of anything.

I wish there were Release Notes supplied with the announcement of the 
new release to satisfy curiosity of what is new/different in this release.

Eugene.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:47:13 +1000, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:

> I wish there were Release Notes supplied with the announcement of the 
> new release to satisfy curiosity of what is new/different in this
> release.

Gentoo doesn't really have releases, except for the installation discs,
so this would be meaningless. Except when a profile is deprecated, and
1.4 was the last to do that, your system is whatever was in portage the
last time you synced and updated.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Angular Momentum Makes The World Go 'Round

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

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Eugene Rosenzweig]

Neil Bothwick wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:47:13 +1000, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I wish there were Release Notes supplied with the announcement of the 
>>new release to satisfy curiosity of what is new/different in this
>>release.
>>    
>>
>
>Gentoo doesn't really have releases, except for the installation discs,
>so this would be meaningless. Except when a profile is deprecated, and
>1.4 was the last to do that, your system is whatever was in portage the
>last time you synced and updated.
>  
>
 From the website:
The Gentoo Foundation is both pleased and proud to announce the much 
anticipated release of *Gentoo Linux 2005.1* (Codename: 'El Nino'). The 
iso images for the release can be found by visiting the Get Gentoo! 
<http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml> page.

Fooled me with the word 'release' in that sentence. Its even got a 
codename. You know something is a proper release if its got a 
codename... :) It is referring to installation iso I guess. Still, even 
though it is not a true release in, eh, truer meaning of the word 
'release', whatever it is in Linux distro world, it would still be nice 
to have Release Notes with some info on whats new/changed.

Eugene.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Craig Zeigler]

Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:

> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:47:13 +1000, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> I wish there were Release Notes supplied with the announcement of 
>>> the new release to satisfy curiosity of what is new/different in this
>>> release.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Gentoo doesn't really have releases, except for the installation discs,
>> so this would be meaningless. Except when a profile is deprecated, and
>> 1.4 was the last to do that, your system is whatever was in portage the
>> last time you synced and updated.
>>  
>>
> From the website:
> The Gentoo Foundation is both pleased and proud to announce the much 
> anticipated release of *Gentoo Linux 2005.1* (Codename: 'El Nino'). 
> The iso images for the release can be found by visiting the Get 
> Gentoo! <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml> page.
>
> Fooled me with the word 'release' in that sentence. Its even got a 
> codename. You know something is a proper release if its got a 
> codename... :) It is referring to installation iso I guess. Still, 
> even though it is not a true release in, eh, truer meaning of the word 
> 'release', whatever it is in Linux distro world, it would still be 
> nice to have Release Notes with some info on whats new/changed.
>
> Eugene.
>
>
If the developers bothered to write stuff like that for every package 
(most of them have changelogs BTW) Gentoo would be like Debian.. years 
between releases
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Mark Knecht]

On 8/10/05, Craig Zeigler <craig@cfrscca.net> wrote:

> >> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:47:13 +1000, Eugene Rosenzweig wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I wish there were Release Notes supplied with the announcement of
> >>> the new release to satisfy curiosity of what is new/different in this
> >>> release.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gentoo doesn't really have releases, except for the installation discs,
> >> so this would be meaningless. Except when a profile is deprecated, and
> >> 1.4 was the last to do that, your system is whatever was in portage the
> >> last time you synced and updated.
> >>
> >>
> > From the website:
> > The Gentoo Foundation is both pleased and proud to announce the much
> > anticipated release of *Gentoo Linux 2005.1* (Codename: 'El Nino').
> > The iso images for the release can be found by visiting the Get
> > Gentoo! <http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/where.xml> page.
> >
> > Fooled me with the word 'release' in that sentence. Its even got a
> > codename. You know something is a proper release if its got a
> > codename... :) It is referring to installation iso I guess. Still,
> > even though it is not a true release in, eh, truer meaning of the word
> > 'release', whatever it is in Linux distro world, it would still be
> > nice to have Release Notes with some info on whats new/changed.
> >
> > Eugene.
> >
> >
> If the developers bothered to write stuff like that for every package
> (most of them have changelogs BTW) Gentoo would be like Debian.. years
> between releases
> --

Yeah, true. Besides, when Neil made that comment he was speaking of
the iso which is the 'installation disc' so I think that Neil was
completely consistant.

cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Edward Catmur]

On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:54 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On 8/10/05, Craig Zeigler <craig@cfrscca.net> wrote:
> > If the developers bothered to write stuff like that for every package
> > (most of them have changelogs BTW) Gentoo would be like Debian.. years
> > between releases
> > --
> 
> Yeah, true. Besides, when Neil made that comment he was speaking of
> the iso which is the 'installation disc' so I think that Neil was
> completely consistant.

Running diff -upr --ignore-matching-lines='^# \
$Header:' /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.{0,1} it looks
like the differences between 2005.0 and 2005.1 are:

1. The default virtuals for os-headers and linux-sources have been
removed (possibly preparatory to merging headers and sources?)
2. The minimum baselayout version is 1.11.12-r4, up from 1.9.4-r3
3. The minimum binutils version is 2.15.90.0.3-r4, up from
2.14.90.0.8-r1

Of course, other architectures may have more significant changes...

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] from 2005.0 to 2005.1

[Allan Spagnol Comar]

Thank you all about the explanation, what I get from the discussion is
that the release is updated automatcly

thank you, Allan

On 8/11/05, Edward Catmur <ed@catmur.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 13:54 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > On 8/10/05, Craig Zeigler <craig@cfrscca.net> wrote:
> > > If the developers bothered to write stuff like that for every package
> > > (most of them have changelogs BTW) Gentoo would be like Debian.. years
> > > between releases
> > > --
> >
> > Yeah, true. Besides, when Neil made that comment he was speaking of
> > the iso which is the 'installation disc' so I think that Neil was
> > completely consistant.
> 
> Running diff -upr --ignore-matching-lines='^# \
> $Header:' /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.{0,1} it looks
> like the differences between 2005.0 and 2005.1 are:
> 
> 1. The default virtuals for os-headers and linux-sources have been
> removed (possibly preparatory to merging headers and sources?)
> 2. The minimum baselayout version is 1.11.12-r4, up from 1.9.4-r3
> 3. The minimum binutils version is 2.15.90.0.3-r4, up from
> 2.14.90.0.8-r1
> 
> Of course, other architectures may have more significant changes...
> 
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list