[gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

# emerge -av claws-mail

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0  USE="berkdb gnutls sasl ssl -
debug -ipv6 -liblockfile" 1,631 kB
[ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl png 
xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 2,470 kB
[ebuild  N     ] www-client/dillo-2.2  USE="gif jpeg png ssl -doc -
ipv6" 616 kB
[ebuild  N     ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1  USE="crypt dbus 
dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification -
bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface" 6,921 kB

Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB

The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws-
mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
>=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo




Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already 
there per portage's own output?

It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me to set 
it explicitly?


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> # emerge -av claws-mail
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0  USE="berkdb gnutls sasl ssl -
> debug -ipv6 -liblockfile" 1,631 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl png
> xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 2,470 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] www-client/dillo-2.2  USE="gif jpeg png ssl -doc -
> ipv6" 616 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1  USE="crypt dbus
> dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification -
> bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface" 6,921 kB
>
> Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB
>
> The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws-
> mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
>>=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo
>
> Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already
> there per portage's own output?
>
> It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me to set
> it explicitly?
>

I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and afterwards
prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with USE="-cairo"
if you just type emerge -av fltk?

-- 
Regards,
Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> 2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> > # emerge -av claws-mail
> > 
> > These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> > 
> > Calculating dependencies... done!
> > [ebuild  N     ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0  USE="berkdb gnutls sasl
> > ssl - debug -ipv6 -liblockfile" 1,631 kB
> > [ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl
> > png xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 2,470 kB
> > [ebuild  N     ] www-client/dillo-2.2  USE="gif jpeg png ssl
> > -doc - ipv6" 616 kB
> > [ebuild  N     ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1  USE="crypt
> > dbus
> > dillo gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification -
> > bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface"
> > 6,921 kB
> > 
> > Total: 4 packages (4 new), Size of downloads: 11,637 kB
> > 
> > The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
> > #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by
> > mail-client/claws-
> > mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
> > 
> >>=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo
> >>
> > Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is
> > already
> > there per portage's own output?
> > 
> > It will build fltk with USE=-cairo, so why the need to tell me
> > to set it explicitly?
> 
> I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and
> afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with
> USE="-cairo" if you just type emerge -av fltk?

emerge -av fltk

gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't seem 
to be causing this change in behaviour:

RDEPEND="x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=]

What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use explicitly 
states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am not about to bloat 
package.use to cater for every "built with use" occurrence. Or perhaps 
it's now only looking at installed deps and not it's own dep graph 
when emerge runs.

Portage should only care about whether the package is already built 
with use, or will be according to the dep graph


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
>>
>> I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and
>> afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk with
>> USE="-cairo" if you just type emerge -av fltk?
>
> emerge -av fltk
>
> gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't seem
> to be causing this change in behaviour:
>
> RDEPEND="x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=]
>
> What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use explicitly
> states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am not about to bloat
> package.use to cater for every "built with use" occurrence. Or perhaps
> it's now only looking at installed deps and not it's own dep graph
> when emerge runs.
>
> Portage should only care about whether the package is already built
> with use, or will be according to the dep graph

So you get the same recommendation about the use flag change?

If you have USE="cairo" in make.conf or it is enabled via some profile
(desktop?) you have to add >=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo to
package.use to override this on a per package basis. I think there is
no way around this.

-- 
Regards,
Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 722 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws-
> mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
> >=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo  

> Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already 
> there per portage's own output?

As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the
autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo
and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo
renderer years ago. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 11:31:09 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> 2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:49:04 Daniel Pielmeier did opine 
thusly:
> >> I guess it displays the USE settings how they should be and
> >> afterwards prints the required changes. Or does it build fltk
> >> with USE="-cairo" if you just type emerge -av fltk?
> > 
> > emerge -av fltk
> > 
> > gives exactly the same output as above. The dillo ebuild doesn't
> > seem to be causing this change in behaviour:
> > 
> > RDEPEND="x11-libs/fltk:2[-cairo,jpeg=,png=]
> > 
> > What it looks like is portage is insisting the package.use
> > explicitly states the USE flags needed. This is wrong and I am
> > not about to bloat package.use to cater for every "built with
> > use" occurrence. Or perhaps it's now only looking at installed
> > deps and not it's own dep graph when emerge runs.
> > 
> > Portage should only care about whether the package is already
> > built with use, or will be according to the dep graph
> 
> So you get the same recommendation about the use flag change?

No, I meant the output was the same as:

[ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl png 
xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 2,470 kB

I didn't run an emerge -p dillo to see what that would do, I did 
meanwhile add an entry to package.use to make portage shut up and do 
what I want (install claws)

> If you have USE="cairo" in make.conf or it is enabled via some
> profile (desktop?) you have to add >=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1
> -cairo to package.use to override this on a per package basis. I
> think there is no way around this.

I have only the defaults:

# grep -r cairo /etc/portage/*
/etc/portage/package.use/package.use:x11-libs/cairo cleartype 
lcdfilter -qt4
/etc/portage/package.use/package.use:>=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -
cairo

/etc/make.profile -> 
../var/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop

# emerge --info | grep cairo
USE=" ... cairo ... "

The package.use entry is new.

I still don't understand why portage is making this fuss. It is saying 
that fltk needs to have a package.use entry for -cairo, but that's not 
what it needs. It needs fltk *built* that way, becuase dillo requires 
it and claws-mail depends on dillo.

Portage's own output immediately prior clearly says that it will build 
fltk with USE=-cairo as part of the dependencies. 

This crap about package.use is a red herring, a new behaviour and 
rather unwanted actually. It's adding useless new stuff into the 
process that doesn't belong.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 10:47:54 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
> > #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by
> > mail-client/claws-
> > mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
> > 
> > >=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo
> > 
> > Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is
> > already
> > there per portage's own output?
> 
> As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since
> the autounmask stuff was introduced. 

In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated 
package.use files to satisfy every "built with use" requirement 
system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and saying 
"Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to do the 
right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the stuff?"

> Or you could emerge Claws with
> -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using
> the dillo renderer years ago.

Well, that's an option.

But I fear this behaviour is going to rear it's head many more times 
with other ebuilds.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:53:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since
> > the autounmask stuff was introduced.   
> 
> In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated 
> package.use files to satisfy every "built with use" requirement 
> system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and saying 
> "Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to do the 
> right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the stuff?"

Are you saying the fltk is/would be built with -cairo anyway and the
recommended addition changes nothing? That sounds extremely undesirable
as it would make maintaining package.use much harder.

I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags for a
package needed to be changed from the current settings.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Everything takes longer than expected, even when you take
  into account Hoffstead's Law." - Hoffstead's Law

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2011/6/22 Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:18:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
>> #required by www-client/dillo-2.2, required by mail-client/claws-
>> mail-3.7.9-r1[dillo], required by claws-mail (argument)
>> >=x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1 -cairo
>
>> Any reason why portage is telling me to set a USE that is already
>> there per portage's own output?
>
> As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way since the
> autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge Claws with -dillo
> and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering. I stopped using the dillo
> renderer years ago.

Actually it is like that since the introduction of use-dependencies
like cat/pkg-ver[use] and _before_. Autounmask ist just for the users
convenience to copy paste the needed changes to package.use. I guess
the reason for this coming up more often is that develpopers start to
use use-dependencies more often.

Before the introduction of use dependencies the only possible way was
to stop emerge at build time and tell the user he needs USE="X" for
package Y. With use dependencies it is now possible to inform the user
about it when resolving the dependencies.

So nothing has changed. If a package requires use settings which are
different from the defaults you have to override this on a per package
basis via package.use.

-- 
Regards,
Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 11:43:20 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:53:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that
> > > way since the autounmask stuff was introduced.
> > 
> > In other words, we must now all end up with giganticly bloated
> > package.use files to satisfy every "built with use" requirement
> > system-wide? What's wrong with looking at the defaults and
> > saying
> > "Gee, you know what, the implicit rules on the box are going to
> > do the right thing anyway, so let's proceed and build the
> > stuff?"
> 
> Are you saying the fltk is/would be built with -cairo anyway and the
> recommended addition changes nothing? That sounds extremely
> undesirable as it would make maintaining package.use much harder.

Ah, hang on a sec. It's not quite what I thought.

The original emerge command done again, plus just fltk on it's own:


# USE="dillo" emerge -pv claws-mail
...
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0  USE="berkdb gnutls sasl ssl -
debug -ipv6 -liblockfile" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl png 
xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] www-client/dillo-2.2  USE="gif jpeg png ssl -doc -
ipv6" 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1  USE="crypt dbus 
dillo* gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification -
bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface" 0 kB


# emerge -pv fltk
...
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="cairo jpeg opengl 
png xft xinerama zlib -debug -doc" 0 kB



The first and second are very different.

> I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags
> for a package needed to be changed from the current settings.

Now it appears that emerge output (at least in the case of an 
unsatisfied emerge) is "what portage *needs* to do" instead of "what 
it *will* do"

Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you 
can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to 
the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to 
package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do.

I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for 
failures.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 12:48:07 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> > As Daniel said, this is what portage needs, it's been that way
> > since the autounmask stuff was introduced. Or you could emerge
> > Claws with -dillo and use the fancy plugin for HTML rendering.
> > I stopped using the dillo renderer years ago.
> 
> Actually it is like that since the introduction of use-dependencies
> like cat/pkg-ver[use] and _before_. Autounmask ist just for the
> users convenience to copy paste the needed changes to package.use.
> I guess the reason for this coming up more often is that
> develpopers start to use use-dependencies more often.

Per my other answer to Neil, it looks like the use handling is 
perfectly fine, emerge is just displaying nonsense in the list of 
stuff it will build.

IO, IO, it's off to bgo we go :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2011/6/22 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
>
> Ah, hang on a sec. It's not quite what I thought.
>
> The original emerge command done again, plus just fltk on it's own:
>
>
> # USE="dillo" emerge -pv claws-mail
> ...
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] net-libs/libetpan-1.0  USE="berkdb gnutls sasl ssl -
> debug -ipv6 -liblockfile" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="jpeg opengl png
> xft xinerama zlib -cairo -debug -doc" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] www-client/dillo-2.2  USE="gif jpeg png ssl -doc -
> ipv6" 0 kB
> [ebuild   R    ] mail-client/claws-mail-3.7.9-r1  USE="crypt dbus
> dillo* gnutls imap ldap session spell ssl startup-notification -
> bogofilter -doc -ipv6 -nntp -pda -smime -spamassassin -xface" 0 kB
>
>
> # emerge -pv fltk
> ...
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N     ] x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1  USE="cairo jpeg opengl
> png xft xinerama zlib -debug -doc" 0 kB
>
>
>
> The first and second are very different.
>
>> I was under the impression portage only did this if the USE flags
>> for a package needed to be changed from the current settings.
>
> Now it appears that emerge output (at least in the case of an
> unsatisfied emerge) is "what portage *needs* to do" instead of "what
> it *will* do"

This is what I mentioned before.

> Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense - you
> can see what the emerge command would do as entered and compare it to
> the error to see what the problem is. In this case it's a tweak to
> package.use which I'm perfectly happy to do.
>
> I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output for
> failures.

You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES="-autounmask".
If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the required
changes and tells you the changes required to your configuration.

-- 
Regards,
Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:22:00 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> > Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense
> > - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and
> > compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this
> > case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to
> > do.
> > 
> > I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output
> > for
> > failures.
> 
> You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES="-autounmask".
> If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the
> required changes and tells you the changes required to your
> configuration.

It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)

I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and 
automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1117 bytes --]

On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 13:41:57 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 14:22:00 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> > > Portage has always displayed the latter right? That makes sense
> > > - you can see what the emerge command would do as entered and
> > > compare it to the error to see what the problem is. In this
> > > case it's a tweak to package.use which I'm perfectly happy to
> > > do.
> > > 
> > > I think it's bug time, portage is displaying the wrong output
> > > for
> > > failures.
> > 
> > You can try if you get the desired output if FEATURES="-autounmask".
> > If you enable autounmask portage automatically enableds the
> > required changes and tells you the changes required to your
> > configuration.
> 
> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
> 
> I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and
> automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-)

I'd include eselect in this.  There's probably nothing scary about it, but it 
does make me feel nervous when I *have* to use it ...  ;-)
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 969 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)

autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.

> I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things software and 
> automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed :-)

autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what should be
added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use autounmask-write for
that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use is a directory[1].
However, it does respect the --ask flag, making it safe for all but the
most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use.

[1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no regard
to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like
packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a comment
to the file to explain the content.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Monday is the root of all evil!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
> 
> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.

So,

is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in 
FEATURES:

$ emerge --info | grep FEATURES 
FEATURES="assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect 
distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news 
parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict 
unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv 
usersandbox usersync"

> 
> > I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things
> > software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed
> > :-)
> 
> autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what
> should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use
> autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use
> is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making
> it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use.
> 
> [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no
> regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like
> packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a
> comment to the file to explain the content.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For 
me at least.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 855 bytes --]

On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 16:31:40 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
> > 
> > autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
> 
> So,
> 
> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in
> FEATURES:
> 
> $ emerge --info | grep FEATURES
> FEATURES="assume-digests binpkg-logs buildsyspkg collision-protect
> distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages metadata-transfer news
> parallel-fetch preserve-libs protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict
> unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch userpriv
> usersandbox usersync"

You're not alone.  It's not shown here either.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1363 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:31:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.  

> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in 
> FEATURES:

Apparently so, as it doesn't show up in emerge --info here either.

> > > I'm a sysadmin, I have an inherent distrust of all things
> > > software and automagic-config-changers are scary things indeed
> > > :-)  
> > 
> > autounmask doesn't actually do anything, it only tells you what
> > should be added to /etc/portage/package.use. You need to use
> > autounmask-write for that, which doesn't play nicely if package.use
> > is a directory[1]. However, it does respect the --ask flag, making
> > it safe for all but the most paranoid BOFHs (no names Alan) to use.
> > 
> > [1] It writes to a file of its choosing in that directory, with no
> > regard to its relevance. I'd prefer it to write to something like
> > packagename.autounmasked or even just packagename as it adds a
> > comment to the file to explain the content.  
> 
> Hmmmmmmmmmmm, still sounds like something that should be banned. For 
> me at least.

Too right, we can't have software telling us what needs to be done to
install it! What will we use Google for now?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
>>
>> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
> 
> So,
> 
> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in 
> FEATURES:

It is not a FEATURE its a default option

NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
      EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 18:30:18 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> >> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
> >> 
> >> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to
> >> off.
> > 
> > So,
> > 
> > is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's
> > not in
> 
> > FEATURES:
> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
> 
> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>       EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.


ahhhhhhhhhhhh, now that makes sense.

Thanks!


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 625 bytes --]

Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
>>
>> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
> 
> So,
> 
> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in 
> FEATURES:

It is not a FEATURE its a default option

NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
      EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Dale]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>    
>> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>>      
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>        
>>>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
>>>>          
>>> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
>>>        
>> So,
>>
>> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in
>> FEATURES:
>>      
> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
>
> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>        EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
>
> Greetings
>
> Sebastian Beßler
>
>    

Ohhhh, I can't pass this up.  That sounds so much like windoze.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 452 bytes --]

Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale:
> Sebastian Beßler wrote:

>> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
>>
>> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>>        EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> 
> Ohhhh, I can't pass this up.  That sounds so much like windoze.  lol
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo
after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 22 June 2011 21:16:30 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale:
> > Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> >> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
> >> 
> >> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
> >> 
> >>        EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in
> >>        make.conf.
> > 
> > Ohhhh, I can't pass this up.  That sounds so much like windoze. 
> > lol
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-)
> 
> This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo
> after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)

Gentoo, the OS that you get to break with the greatest of ease. And 
the devs will go to extra-ordinary lengths to help you do just that.

My Gentoo is like my 3 dogs - Boston Terriers - ugly as sin and they 
fart like troopers but I still love 'em to bits in spite^W^Wbecause of 
it :-)


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 744 bytes --]

On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 21:12:21 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 21:16:30 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> > Am 22.06.2011 20:22, schrieb Dale:
> > > Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> > >> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
> > >> 
> > >> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
> > >> 
> > >>        EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in
> > >>        make.conf.

$ emerge --info | grep EMERGE_DEFAULT
Unset:  CPPFLAGS, CTARGET, EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS, INSTALL_MASK, 
PORTAGE_BUNZIP2_COMMAND, PORTAGE_COMPRESS, PORTAGE_COMPRESS_FLAGS, 
PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS

EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS is unset here, so I assume that I inherit the autounmask 
as a matter of course.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

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

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 643 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote:

> This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo
> after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)

In what way is it bad? Gentoo used to fail to install stuff because your
USE flags were wrong and you had to go on a treasure hunt to find each
one you needed to set, one at a time. Now it simply says "if you want
this, set these use flags on those packages" and people still complain.

Some people won't be happy until we go back to Grub style error messages,
preferably in binary :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Matthew Finkel]

On 06/22/11 18:58, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>> This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo
>> after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)
> Some people won't be happy until we go back to Grub style error messages,
> preferably in binary :(

How could there possibly be a better solution than going back to the
basics? :-P

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 671 bytes --]

Am 23.06.2011 00:58, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> 
>> This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is Gentoo
>> after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)
> 
> In what way is it bad? 

It is "bad" because

a) it is new, and new stuff is always evil :-P
b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without
autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With
autounmask it shows what needs to be done.
c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning
d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any "real
gentoo user" :-D

Greetings

Sebastian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2011/6/22 Sebastian Beßler <sebastian@darkmetatron.de>:
> Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same thing)
>>>
>>> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it to off.
>>
>> So,
>>
>> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's not in
>> FEATURES:
>
> It is not a FEATURE its a default option
>
> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>      EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
>

Sorry for the confusion by mixing up FEATURES with
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. I did not have a Gentoo machine at hand when
writing this.

-- 
Regards,
Daniel

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> Am 23.06.2011 00:58, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> > On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 21:16:30 +0200, Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> >> This new behavior is bad, but not as bad as Windows. This is
> >> Gentoo after all and not Ubuntu ;-P :-)
> > 
> > In what way is it bad?
> 
> It is "bad" because
> 
> a) it is new, and new stuff is always evil :-P
> b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without
> autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With
> autounmask it shows what needs to be done.

That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev 
joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - 
portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from 
what it used to do. The normal response if "WTF?" followed by lots of 
indignation

> c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning
> d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any "real
> gentoo user" :-D


I agree, it's all bad.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 13:31:10 Daniel Pielmeier did opine thusly:
> 2011/6/22 Sebastian Beßler <sebastian@darkmetatron.de>:
> > Am 22.06.2011 17:31, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> >> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 15:44:40 Neil Bothwick did opine 
thusly:
> >>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:41:57 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >>>> It is unset here (well, it's not set, actually - same
> >>>> thing)
> >>> 
> >>> autounmask is set by default, you need to explicitly set it
> >>> to off.
> >> 
> >> So,
> >> 
> >> is it invisibly on then? I don't have it in make.conf and it's
> >> not in
> > 
> >> FEATURES:
> > It is not a FEATURE its a default option
> > 
> > NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
> >      EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> 
> Sorry for the confusion by mixing up FEATURES with
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS. I did not have a Gentoo machine at hand when
> writing this.

No worries, I had also assumed it was a FEATURE. 

I'd read about it in Changelogs long before you posted but paid little 
attention - it's something I wouldn't use, so could ignore it.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Yohan Pereira]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 294 bytes --]

On Thursday 23 Jun 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any "real
> gentoo user"

isnt portage itself a huge amount of automation? :P

-- 

- Yohan Pereira

"A man can do as he will, but not will as he will" - Schopenhauer

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2321 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1962 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:38:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> On Thursday 23 June 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:

> > b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. Without
> > autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to do. With
> > autounmask it shows what needs to be done.  
> 
> That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an old dev 
> joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it applies here - 
> portage is now suddenly doing something new and 180 different from 
> what it used to do. The normal response if "WTF?" followed by lots of 
> indignation

Ah, the old "we do it that way because that's the way it's always been
done" argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing when you
first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad.

> > c) it is a big change that came wihout any warning

Apart from the elog messages?

> > d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any "real
> > gentoo user" :-D

What are you talking about? The default setting only displays the changes
that need to be made, there is no automation. You need to enable a
setting, one that only an idiot would enable without adding --ask too,
before anything is automatically written to a file.

> I agree, it's all bad.

Here's the change:

Old way: Portage complained about a flag or mask setting that needed to
be changed. You changed it and tried again. Portage complained about
another change it needed. Rinse and repeat until either all requirements
are satisfied or you give up in disgust.

New way: Portage gives you a list of all the changes that need to be made
and lets you either make them yourself or tells you about an option to
have it do it for you.

I thought even Gentoo users believed in letting the computer do all the
tedious works, otherwise they'd be running LFS.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

UNILINGUAL: American.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
> > > b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations.
> > > Without
> > > autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to
> > > do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done.
> >
> > 
> >
> > That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an
> > old dev  joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it
> > applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and
> > 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if
> > "WTF?" followed by lots of indignation
> 
> Ah, the old "we do it that way because that's the way it's always
> been done" argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing
> when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad.

The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it 
in this way is bad.

Why?

Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite 
without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, 
simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me 
what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation 
can you get?

Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped 
and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file 
name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is 
not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of 
hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow.

All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues. 

Sure, it's a contrived example, but it's also a very good example of 
why one never suddenly and without warning changes default behaviour 
to the opposite.

Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options. 
Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a 
way that it catches old time users by surprise.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 6/23/2011 6:31 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly:
>>>> b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations.
>>>> Without
>>>> autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to
>>>> do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an
>>> old dev  joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it
>>> applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and
>>> 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if
>>> "WTF?" followed by lots of indignation
>>
>> Ah, the old "we do it that way because that's the way it's always
>> been done" argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing
>> when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad.
> 
> The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it 
> in this way is bad.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite 
> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, 
> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me 
> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation 
> can you get?

I thought the old behavior was "portage would tell me why it's not going
to do anything", vs. the new behavior of "portage will tell me why it's
not going to do anything, plus offer to fix it for me."

Unless I'm missing something about the pre-auto-unmask behavior? (Which
is entirely likely..)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:56:19 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:

> I thought the old behavior was "portage would tell me why it's not going
> to do anything", vs. the new behavior of "portage will tell me why it's
> not going to do anything, plus offer to fix it for me."

Not quite. The old behaviour was that portage would tell you the first
reason it wasn't going to do anything. You had to fix that and try again
to get the second reason, again and again. 


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Minds are like parachutes; they only function when fully open. * Sir
James Dewar

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1847 bytes --]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite 
> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, 
> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me 
> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation 
> can you get?

It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs,
but all in one go, not one problem at a time.

> Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped 
> and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file 
> name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is 
> not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of 
> hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow.
> 
> All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues. 
> 
> Sure, it's a contrived example,

Not only contrived, but irrelevant. Because tcpwrappers actually does
something. If your USE flags are unsuitable, portage actually does
nothing. All that's changed is how it tells you why it has done nothing.

> Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options. 
> Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a 
> way that it catches old time users by surprise.

I must admit, although I read about the new option, probably in an elog
message, I was surprised the first time it kicked in when I hadn't turned
it on. Although it was not a bad surprised and I then recalled that the
message had explained that this was now the default behaviour.

One of the unwritten rules of Gentoo is that if you don't read elog
messages, you can expect to get burned.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

What do you do when you see an endangered animal eating an endangered
plant?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

Am 24.06.2011 02:10, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 
>> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite 
>> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, 
>> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me 
>> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation 
>> can you get?
> 
> It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs,
> but all in one go, not one problem at a time.

The feature is not bad, but how it is implemented is.

With autounmask you get a notice that you have something to change, then
look up to the portage presented list and see that the changes are
already there. Then you are wondering why portage says that you have to
do something that is already done and assume it is a bug.

Such a reaction started this thread.

Now that I know how to read it and what to expect I can work with it and
see that it is not so bad after all.

The change was unexpected and contrary to reasonable expectation mainly
because there was no information before or after this change. It needed
this thread to clear how it works and how to read ist.

Greetings

Sebastian


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE?

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]

Am 23.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Yohan Pereira:
> On Thursday 23 Jun 2011 08:59:53 Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>> d) it is an automation, and because of that a red flag for any "real
>> gentoo user"
> 
> isnt portage itself a huge amount of automation? :P

Yes, but a "good ol' automation" :-P


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]