Re: [gentoo-user] No server profile anymore???

[Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>]

On 10/02/2013 19:25, Jarry wrote:
> Hi gentoo-users,
> 
> today after syncing portage tree I tried to update my system,
> but I was "greeted" with message:
> 
> !!! Your current profile is deprecated and not supported anymore.
> !!! Use eselect profile to update your profile.
> !!! Please upgrade to the following profile if possible:
>       default/linux/amd64/13.0
> 
> So I reverted to previous snapshot just to see what I had before
> ("eselect profile list" did not show any selected). Till today
> I had "default/linux/amd64/10.0/server". To my big surprise,
> there is no "server" profile for "default/linux/amd64/13.0".
> 
> So is server-profile not suported anymore??? I hope devs had
> good reason for this, but anyway a change like *this* should
> definitely be communicated with users in advance...
> 
> Right now I'm not sure if Gentoo is not supported for server
> at all or "13.0" is substitution for "10.0/server". But before
> there were pure "10.0" and "10.0/server" profiles. So it seems
> to me server profile was simply removed without any substitution.

You'll be getting a news item real soon now [1]

Basically, the 13.0 profiles were written to make use of EAPI=5. You'll
need to install a recent portage first though, but don;t worry, the most
recent stable and ~ version both work fine in this regard.

The server profile has gone away as it was little used and didn't do
very much - it changed little if anything from it's parent profile. So
just like the news item is going to tell you, eselect profile to a
somewhat equivalent one (IIRC default/linux/amd64/13.0) and tweak it to
match what you used to have - this will involve little more than
eye-balling emerge world's output paying attention to any USE flags that
changed their default.


[1] OK, the news items, or more specifically the lack of timeous news
items in advance. This is the second occurrence in recent times where
devs have had to do some back-pedalling, the first was udev with it's
TMPDEVFS fiasco. I myself am getting a teeny bit pissed off with this
now. I think a large collection of user should pen a nice polite letter
to whomever deals with such things asking for more attention to be paid
to QA matters like this.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com