From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M8Fj7-0007xW-Jk for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 24 May 2009 15:35:05 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2EA91E0334; Sun, 24 May 2009 15:35:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gx0-f176.google.com (mail-gx0-f176.google.com [209.85.217.176]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0385EE0334 for ; Sun, 24 May 2009 15:35:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk24 with SMTP id 24so4086365gxk.10 for ; Sun, 24 May 2009 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ABq+KU6vhYPV6HGSPaqINgsr3hZetsh+HdXaYPdZXY0=; b=wjTcdKzHwe2RgTPZmWjpDZWazczSrfuTqcwiAcBVt5RXwq66Sd/RSPzrHZeGGjUAvz ij6nM6W81eJ5iwpNJISoae6M14ZXhiim3QwG9aTYO8Jvk9naTn3D5qnpZ/xL6RDaA/UQ 0ngvqoeDhvyoOgJNWI3CTWGiHdIAmzPvIS4k0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=t5JtpPoPkiN0T18LUhXKJ4mWLZQA0sUkJLgQNwZ1FENeueCTnGww+qbMQaP4j+DO73 o3UsKFEwOI9VnwZdOOmUcDWTu5yQ82OvrZERCJg7fazmvKfXY7+KM2m8vsJs/kSquHMn vybcqz322JW3hF2ulm8RrTtXeRJvZSUnJDNTE= Received: by 10.90.26.3 with SMTP id 3mr5372856agz.49.1243179303666; Sun, 24 May 2009 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?64.49.63.21? (r63h21.dixie-net.com [64.49.63.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 3sm3695569aga.45.2009.05.24.08.34.27 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 24 May 2009 08:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A1968B9.5020608@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 10:33:13 -0500 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090519 SeaMonkey/1.1.16 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python References: <983967.82330.qm@web51306.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <200905241107.13649.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <20090524102830.5d6860f9@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> <200905241206.02523.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <4A193AC3.9020002@gmail.com> <20090524152625.72179f44@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20090524152625.72179f44@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 0695b9ec-7783-421d-84e5-d118a31b5b1d X-Archives-Hash: d0752c3dfb42cba313ad807bf474f8b0 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:17:07 -0500, Dale wrote: > > >> 1: If I accidentally remove python, portage will not say a word as far >> as warning me this is bad. This is what got the OP into this. >> > > Yes, and that's a recent change, presumably as part of the move to make > Gentoo and the portage tree work with any valid package manager. > > >> 2: Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even >> have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one. That >> was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to >> screw with my setting and its meaning. >> > > Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has > changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need > for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage. > True but the end result is as I described. It's no longer stored because it was removed from system, presumably because of other package managers not needing it. > >> 3: Portage is the package manager for Gentoo. As Alan said, it always >> has been and most likely always will. I'm not against having other >> package managers but if they are going to start messing up my settings, >> then I plan to gripe at least a little. If they are not going to >> support buildsyspkg then it needs to be announced and removed. False >> security is worse than none at all. >> > > That's not the case. The problem is that buildsyspkg does exactly what it > says, which is not what you want. The definition of buildsyspkg should be > changed so that it build binary packages for all packages needed to > install @system, not just the packages named in 'system. > See above. It used to store this but because of the above, it doesn't anymore. It's changed because the system file was changed. It appears to me that this needs to be added back to system like it used to be. > >> My opinion on how this SHOULD work. If I do a emerge -e system, every >> package it builds should have a binary saved for back up. It doesn't >> matter if it is a dependency on something else or not, it should be >> built and stored. >> > > Exactly, and a buildsyspkg user should file an enhancement bug requesting > this change in its behaviour. > > >> Dale is going to go change this to buildpkg and run emerge -e system. >> > > That's not the way to deal with it. Address the problem,don't hide from > it :) > > >> Let's see if that even works or not. >> > > It will, at the expense of more storage space. I've used buildpkg for > years. > > > Dale :-) :-)