[gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2463 bytes --]

I just tried

emerge -DuN @world @system -va

and got:

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

Calculating dependencies ... done!
[ebuild     U  ] perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 [2.22.06] 0 kB
[ebuild     U  ] www-client/firefox-bin-5.0 [3.6.19]
USE="startup-notification"
[ebuild  N     ] x11-themes/tango-icon-theme-0.8.90  USE="png" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] media-plugins/kipi-plugins-2.0.0  USE="cdr crypt
imagemagick mediawiki opengl (-aqua) -calendar -debug -expoblending
-gpssync -handbook -ipod (-kdeenablefinal) -mjpeg -redeyes -scanner"

[ebuild  N     ] media-gfx/digikam-2.0.0  USE="gphoto2 handbook
thumbnails -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -doc (-kdeenablefinal) -mysql
-semantic-desktop -themedesigner -video"

[ebuild  N     ] xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.8  USE="session svg -minimal" 0 kB

Total: 6 packages (2 upgrades, 4 new), Size of downloads: 15,432 kB

The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 ~amd64

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

But if I run:

EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" emerge -DuN @world @system -va

I get:

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

Calculating dependencies                   ... done!
[ebuild     U  ] www-client/firefox-bin-5.0 [3.6.19]
USE="startup-notification"
[ebuild  N     ] x11-themes/tango-icon-theme-0.8.90  USE="png" 0 kB
[ebuild  N     ] media-plugins/kipi-plugins-2.0.0  USE="cdr crypt
imagemagick mediawiki opengl (-aqua) -calendar -debug -expoblending
-gpssync -handbook -ipod (-kdeenablefinal) -mjpeg -redeyes -scanner"

[ebuild  N     ] media-gfx/digikam-2.0.0  USE="gphoto2 handbook
thumbnails -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -doc (-kdeenablefinal) -mysql
-semantic-desktop -themedesigner -video"

[ebuild  N     ] xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.8  USE="session svg -minimal" 0 kB

Total: 5 packages (1 upgrade, 4 new), Size of downloads: 15,432 kB

Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]

[LINGUAS was stripped by me to remove unneded clutter from this post]

I run ~amd64 but have =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -~amd64 because
of a bug with imagemagick [#378383].

Why is autounmask trying to unmask ExtUtils-ParseXS if it's not needed?
Should I report this as a bug?

Greetings

Sebastian Beßler


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon 15 August 2011 19:31:37 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> I just tried
> 
> emerge -DuN @world @system -va
> 
> and got:
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies ... done!
> [ebuild     U  ] perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 [2.22.06] 0 kB
> [ebuild     U  ] www-client/firefox-bin-5.0 [3.6.19]
> USE="startup-notification"
> [ebuild  N     ] x11-themes/tango-icon-theme-0.8.90  USE="png" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] media-plugins/kipi-plugins-2.0.0  USE="cdr crypt
> imagemagick mediawiki opengl (-aqua) -calendar -debug -expoblending
> -gpssync -handbook -ipod (-kdeenablefinal) -mjpeg -redeyes -scanner"
> 
> [ebuild  N     ] media-gfx/digikam-2.0.0  USE="gphoto2 handbook
> thumbnails -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -doc (-kdeenablefinal) -mysql
> -semantic-desktop -themedesigner -video"
> 
> [ebuild  N     ] xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.8  USE="session svg
> -minimal" 0 kB
> 
> Total: 6 packages (2 upgrades, 4 new), Size of downloads: 15,432 kB
> 
> The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
> 
> >=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 ~amd64
> 
> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>       EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf
> 
> But if I run:
> 
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" emerge -DuN @world @system -va
> 
> I get:
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies                   ... done!
> [ebuild     U  ] www-client/firefox-bin-5.0 [3.6.19]
> USE="startup-notification"
> [ebuild  N     ] x11-themes/tango-icon-theme-0.8.90  USE="png" 0 kB
> [ebuild  N     ] media-plugins/kipi-plugins-2.0.0  USE="cdr crypt
> imagemagick mediawiki opengl (-aqua) -calendar -debug -expoblending
> -gpssync -handbook -ipod (-kdeenablefinal) -mjpeg -redeyes -scanner"
> 
> [ebuild  N     ] media-gfx/digikam-2.0.0  USE="gphoto2 handbook
> thumbnails -addressbook (-aqua) -debug -doc (-kdeenablefinal) -mysql
> -semantic-desktop -themedesigner -video"
> 
> [ebuild  N     ] xfce-base/xfce4-meta-4.8  USE="session svg
> -minimal" 0 kB
> 
> Total: 5 packages (1 upgrade, 4 new), Size of downloads: 15,432 kB
> 
> Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No]
> 
> [LINGUAS was stripped by me to remove unneded clutter from this
> post]
> 
> I run ~amd64 but have =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -~amd64
> because of a bug with imagemagick [#378383].
> 
> Why is autounmask trying to unmask ExtUtils-ParseXS if it's not
> needed? Should I report this as a bug?

It's not a bug, portage is doing what it should.

In the first case portage will try upgrade all packages to the latest 
version. It sees that you asked it to try autounmask stuff, so it 
wants to override your local mask for ExtUtils-ParseXS. 

In the second case you have told portage to upgrade system and world 
but to leave masking well enough alone. As your current installed 
version of ExtUtils-ParseXS satisfies all needs, it makes no effort to 
try and upgrade it.

The trick to working with autounmask is to realise that it is stupid 
software, it cannot possibly know what you want or intend. So it tries 
a blanket approach for the most part. If you have more complex masking 
than just stable/unstable statistically it will be wrong far more 
often than it is right.

It's possible to come up with an "autounmask ignore" file but that 
gets way too complex really quickly and easily turns into an 
unmaintainable mess. Devs are usually reluctant to go this route, as 
the mess just ends up in their inbox.




-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3123 bytes --]

Am 15.08.2011 20:02, schrieb Alan McKinnon:

> It's not a bug, portage is doing what it should.
> 
> In the first case portage will try upgrade all packages to the latest 
> version. It sees that you asked it to try autounmask stuff, so it 
> wants to override your local mask for ExtUtils-ParseXS. 

I don't asked portage to autounmask anything, that is a feature of
portage-2.2 and should normaly only fire when there is a need to unmask
(or change USE or change keyword) anything to fullfill the needs of the
packages to be installed or updated.

Else it would tell anyone on stable who use portage-2.2 to change to
~unstable because there is newer stuff to install. I have a large amount
on packages that have newer versions that are masked and autounmask
doesn't ask me to install them only because they are newer.

> In the second case you have told portage to upgrade system and world 
> but to leave masking well enough alone. As your current installed 
> version of ExtUtils-ParseXS satisfies all needs, it makes no effort to 
> try and upgrade it.

I think that you not really know what the autounmask-feature of
portage-2.2 is all about.

Normally it does something like this:

emerge =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -vp

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

Calculating dependencies               ... done!
[ebuild     U  ] perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 [2.22.06] 0 kB

Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 kB

The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 (argument)
>=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 ~amd64

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

without it would look like this:

EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" emerge
=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -vp

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

Calculating dependencies         ... done!

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0"
have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
request:
- perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0::gentoo (masked by: ~amd64 keyword)

For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

It is just a other way to display what is needed to be done. If
autounmask fires portage should throw an error too if trying the same
thing again with autounmask=n. But here it doesn't. It tells me to
unmaks without any need.

> The trick to working with autounmask is to realise that it is stupid 
> software, it cannot possibly know what you want or intend. So it tries 
> a blanket approach for the most part. If you have more complex masking 
> than just stable/unstable statistically it will be wrong far more 
> often than it is right.

If there is a package version masked and nothing needs that version then
autounmask should not fire. It should leave that alone.

For me it still looks like a bug.

Greetings

Sebastian


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon 15 August 2011 20:55:12 Sebastian Beßler did opine thusly:
> Am 15.08.2011 20:02, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> > It's not a bug, portage is doing what it should.
> > 
> > In the first case portage will try upgrade all packages to the
> > latest version. It sees that you asked it to try autounmask
> > stuff, so it wants to override your local mask for
> > ExtUtils-ParseXS.
> 
> I don't asked portage to autounmask anything, that is a feature of
> portage-2.2 and should normaly only fire when there is a need to
> unmask (or change USE or change keyword) anything to fullfill the
> needs of the packages to be installed or updated.
> 
> Else it would tell anyone on stable who use portage-2.2 to change to
> ~unstable because there is newer stuff to install. I have a large
> amount on packages that have newer versions that are masked and
> autounmask doesn't ask me to install them only because they are
> newer.
> > In the second case you have told portage to upgrade system and
> > world but to leave masking well enough alone. As your current
> > installed version of ExtUtils-ParseXS satisfies all needs, it
> > makes no effort to try and upgrade it.
> 
> I think that you not really know what the autounmask-feature of
> portage-2.2 is all about.
> 
> Normally it does something like this:
> 
> emerge =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -vp
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies               ... done!
> [ebuild     U  ] perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 [2.22.06] 0 kB
> 
> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 kB
> 
> The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
> #required by =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 (argument)
> 
> >=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 ~amd64
> 
> NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>       EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> 
> without it would look like this:
> 
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" emerge
> =perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 -vp
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies         ... done!
> 
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy
> "=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0" have been masked.
> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete
> your request:
> - perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0::gentoo (masked by: ~amd64
> keyword)
> 
> For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
> man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
> 
> It is just a other way to display what is needed to be done. If
> autounmask fires portage should throw an error too if trying the
> same thing again with autounmask=n. But here it doesn't. It tells
> me to unmaks without any need.

Do you have autounmask enabled or disabled in your config for portage?

That first example you gave strongly indicates you have it enabled.


> 
> > The trick to working with autounmask is to realise that it is
> > stupid software, it cannot possibly know what you want or
> > intend. So it tries a blanket approach for the most part. If
> > you have more complex masking than just stable/unstable
> > statistically it will be wrong far more often than it is right.
> 
> If there is a package version masked and nothing needs that version
> then autounmask should not fire. It should leave that alone.
> 
> For me it still looks like a bug.
> 
> Greetings
> 
> Sebastian
-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> Do you have autounmask enabled or disabled in your config for portage?
>
> That first example you gave strongly indicates you have it enabled.
>
>
>    

I'm thinking the same thing.  It seems to be enabled by default I 
think.  I know it is here and I didn't do it.  It just sort of appeared 
one day.  I *think* I even asked on here about it.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon 15 August 2011 15:12:09 Dale did opine thusly:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Do you have autounmask enabled or disabled in your config for
> > portage?
> > 
> > That first example you gave strongly indicates you have it
> > enabled.
> I'm thinking the same thing.  It seems to be enabled by default I
> think.  I know it is here and I didn't do it.  It just sort of
> appeared one day.  I *think* I even asked on here about it.

You did, and I remember it clearly. I even looked at my own setup and 
concluded that a recent portage update enabled it by default.

I never had any issues with it as I run unstable so there's nothing to 
unmask except my -9999 packages which are all unamsked ** already.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

Am 15.08.2011 21:34, schrieb Alan McKinnon:

> Do you have autounmask enabled or disabled in your config for portage?

I have it enabled because it is enabled by default. You have to explicit
disable it.
So, because it is enabled by default, I never asked portage to
autounmask anything for me.


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am 15.08.2011 21:34, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
>
>    
>> Do you have autounmask enabled or disabled in your config for portage?
>>      
> I have it enabled because it is enabled by default. You have to explicit
> disable it.
> So, because it is enabled by default, I never asked portage to
> autounmask anything for me.
>
>    

Well sort of.  Since you didn't disable it, portage did what it was told 
to do.  I sort of like on by default otherwise I may not know there is a 
new "feature".  Then again, it can be bad since it could bork something 
else and you not know until it was done.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Paul Hartman]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Sebastian Beßler
<sebastian@darkmetatron.de> wrote:
> Why is autounmask trying to unmask ExtUtils-ParseXS if it's not needed?
> Should I report this as a bug?

I think it's only telling you what you should unmask. Setting
--autounmask=n simply makes it stop giving you this hint.

To actually unmask anything you would need to use --autounmask-write=y

Use --tree to get a better idea what package wants the newer ExtUtils-ParseXS

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1188 bytes --]

Am 15.08.2011 23:33, schrieb Paul Hartman:

> Use --tree to get a better idea what package wants the newer ExtUtils-ParseXS

I narrowed it down to

emerge perl-core/Module-Build -vp

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

Calculating dependencies                   ... done!
[ebuild     U  ] perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 [2.22.06] 0 kB
[ebuild   R    ] perl-core/Module-Build-0.380.0  0 kB

Total: 2 packages (1 upgrade, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 kB

The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
#required by virtual/perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0, required by
perl-core/Module-Build-0.380.0, required by perl-core/Module-Build
(argument)
>=perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 ~amd64

and Module-Build-0.380.0 has >=virtual/perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS-2.22.05 in
DEPEND.

So yes autounmask was actually right, because I masked
perl-core/ExtUtils-ParseXS-3.20.0 but not the virtual-3.20.0.
After doing that everything is fine here.

But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n?
The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge
spit some error out both times?

Greetings

Sebastian


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>
> But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n?
> The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge
> spit some error out both times?
>
> Greetings
>
> Sebastian
>
>    

Because autounmask=n assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that is 
masked so it didn't suggest it.

Ain't life confusing?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Sebastian Beßler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]

Am 16.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Dale:
> Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>>
>> But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n?
>> The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge
>> spit some error out both times?
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Sebastian
>>
>>    
> 
> Because autounmask=n assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that is
> masked so it didn't suggest it.

But there was a broken dependency, not just something that could be
upgraded. autounmask=y now, after setting the virtual to -~amd64 too, is
quiet and doesn't tells me to unmask anything.

Still think that emerge should have thrown an error both times, but if
it is ok for anyone here that it doesn't then it is ok for me too ;-)

> Ain't life confusing?

Yes, yes it is!


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale]

Sebastian Beßler wrote:
> Am 16.08.2011 02:18, schrieb Dale:
>    
>> Sebastian Beßler wrote:
>>      
>>> But why was autounmask=y complaining but not autounmask=n?
>>> The dependency of the virtual was missing both times so shouldn't emerge
>>> spit some error out both times?
>>>
>>> Greetings
>>>
>>> Sebastian
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> Because autounmask=n assumes you don't want to upgrade anything that is
>> masked so it didn't suggest it.
>>      
> But there was a broken dependency, not just something that could be
> upgraded. autounmask=y now, after setting the virtual to -~amd64 too, is
> quiet and doesn't tells me to unmask anything.
>
> Still think that emerge should have thrown an error both times, but if
> it is ok for anyone here that it doesn't then it is ok for me too ;-)
>
>    

Well, it could be that I'm reading the error incorrectly too.  Ask 
people how much fun it is for me to figure out what the heck portage is 
puking on my keyboard.  I have had Alan explain it to me, what he says 
makes sense but it just goes right over my head.  I have learned that 
sometimes portage pukes backward tho.  I call that eating but portage 
disagrees with me.  ;-)   One could read a lot into that couldn't they?  
It's pretty deep.  lol

>> Ain't life confusing?
>>      
> Yes, yes it is!
>
>    

Yep, portage confuses me a lot. This is life.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Pandu Poluan]

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 14:33, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it could be that I'm reading the error incorrectly too.  Ask people
> how much fun it is for me to figure out what the heck portage is puking on
> my keyboard.  I have had Alan explain it to me, what he says makes sense but
> it just goes right over my head.  I have learned that sometimes portage
> pukes backward tho.  I call that eating but portage disagrees with me.  ;-)
>   One could read a lot into that couldn't they?  It's pretty deep.  lol

*sigh*

Dale, for the love of all things holy, please don't put "puke" and
"eating" near to each other.

lol :D

Rgds,
-- 
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage autounmask is strange again

[Dale]

Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 14:33, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Well, it could be that I'm reading the error incorrectly too.  Ask people
>> how much fun it is for me to figure out what the heck portage is puking on
>> my keyboard.  I have had Alan explain it to me, what he says makes sense but
>> it just goes right over my head.  I have learned that sometimes portage
>> pukes backward tho.  I call that eating but portage disagrees with me.  ;-)
>>    One could read a lot into that couldn't they?  It's pretty deep.  lol
>>      
> *sigh*
>
> Dale, for the love of all things holy, please don't put "puke" and
> "eating" near to each other.
>
> lol :D
>
> Rgds,
>    

Well what portage calls output is sometimes backward which means input.  
Right? < sighs >

Dang, life is so confusing then portage came along and turned things 
around.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)