[gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Tanstaafl]

Wow... just noticed an update is available which, for me, means it has 
been stabilized (at least on amd64)...

You'd think this would rate a news item and/or other major announcement, 
considering how long it has taken to get here...

Anyway, really glad to see this happen, and thanks to the devs for 
getting it here!

Now to wait a few days to see if there is any breakage to report (not 
worried about it really, though, since it has actually gotten a ton of 
testing over the last year or two)...

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Jeff Horelick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On 9 September 2013 09:44, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:

> Wow... just noticed an update is available which, for me, means it has
> been stabilized (at least on amd64)...
>
> You'd think this would rate a news item and/or other major announcement,
> considering how long it has taken to get here...
>
> Anyway, really glad to see this happen, and thanks to the devs for getting
> it here!
>
> Now to wait a few days to see if there is any breakage to report (not
> worried about it really, though, since it has actually gotten a ton of
> testing over the last year or two)...
>
>
I agree that this kind of deserves a news post just because of how
momentous the occasion is, however there should not be many breakages from
this as most of the features have already been in the last stable portage
(such as sets and preserved-rebuild on by default). The biggest changes are
probably userpriv and usersync being on by default (which is a recent
change). I don't really believe that anyone will be using programmatic
custom sets for a while now, which is the last feature to not be
back-patched to 2.1

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1474 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Monday 09 Sep 2013 09:44:01 Tanstaafl wrote:
> Wow... just noticed an update is available which, for me, means it has
> been stabilized (at least on amd64)...

--->8

> Now to wait a few days to see if there is any breakage to report (not
> worried about it really, though, since it has actually gotten a ton of
> testing over the last year or two)...

...and the first time I use it it falls over! Portage was the only thing 
updated yesterday, so nothing else changed at the same time.

# emerge --sync
>>> Synchronization of repository 'gentoo' located in '/usr/portage'...
>>> Starting rsync with rsync://192.168.2.2/gentoo-portage...
>>> Checking server timestamp ...
receiving incremental file list
rsync: mkstemp "/var/tmp/.tmp8KJSYc.AHSsPH" failed: Permission denied (13)

I checked it wasn't anything I'd set in make.conf by stripping out everything 
but the original few lines from system installation, so I'm sure I hadn't set 
any odd paths.

So for the moment I've masked out =sys-apps/portage-2.2.1 and reverted to 
2.1.12.2. Now I'm getting some odd USE flag conflicts, which I suppose won't be 
related; I'll work on sorting that out.

I also tried syncing a 32-bit chroot Gentoo system and that worked fine. That 
system has always had:

# grep portage /etc/portage/package.keywords
<sys-apps/portage-9999  **

Trust someone to find a problem!  :-(

Is it working for you, Dale?  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Markos Chandras]

On 10 September 2013 10:13, Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Monday 09 Sep 2013 09:44:01 Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Wow... just noticed an update is available which, for me, means it has
>> been stabilized (at least on amd64)...
>
> --->8
>
>> Now to wait a few days to see if there is any breakage to report (not
>> worried about it really, though, since it has actually gotten a ton of
>> testing over the last year or two)...
>
> ...and the first time I use it it falls over! Portage was the only thing
> updated yesterday, so nothing else changed at the same time.
>
> # emerge --sync
>>>> Synchronization of repository 'gentoo' located in '/usr/portage'...
>>>> Starting rsync with rsync://192.168.2.2/gentoo-portage...
>>>> Checking server timestamp ...
> receiving incremental file list
> rsync: mkstemp "/var/tmp/.tmp8KJSYc.AHSsPH" failed: Permission denied (13)

Maybe this

http://bugs.gentoo.org/477682

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Is it working for you, Dale? :-) 

[IP-] [  ] sys-apps/portage-2.2.1:0 

Sun Aug 25 05:27:12 2013 >>> sys-apps/portage-2.2.1

So far, so good.  I been using unstable, except for the 9999 version,
for quite a while.  Are you saying something is broke and it works for
me??  O_O  Seriously??  This is a joke right??

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 07:18:11 Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > Is it working for you, Dale? :-)
> So far, so good.  I been using unstable, except for the 9999 version,
> for quite a while.  Are you saying something is broke and it works for
> me??  O_O  Seriously??  This is a joke right??

No joke, I assure you. As Markos pointed out, a bug has already been opened, 
and I fell over it with a vanilla make.conf.

Unless someone knows of a work-around, I'll stick with the old version of 
portage until the bug-fix reaches the stable system.

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Hinnerk van Bruinehsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 03:13:50PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 07:18:11 Dale wrote:
> > Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > Is it working for you, Dale? :-)
> > So far, so good.  I been using unstable, except for the 9999 version,
> > for quite a while.  Are you saying something is broke and it works for
> > me??  O_O  Seriously??  This is a joke right??
> 
> No joke, I assure you. As Markos pointed out, a bug has already been opened, 
> and I fell over it with a vanilla make.conf.
> 
> Unless someone knows of a work-around, I'll stick with the old version of 
> portage until the bug-fix reaches the stable system.
> 
Try to add -userpriv to your FEATURES (as in FEATURES="-userpriv") in make.conf

WKR
Hinnerk

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 16:48:24 Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:

> Try [adding] -userpriv to your FEATURES (as in FEATURES="-userpriv") in
> make.conf

Nope. Didn't help.

I see mention of "usersync" in the bug conversation, but I don't know what 
that means.

I'll just wait for the fixed version, I think.

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[David W Noon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:28:55 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?:

> On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 16:48:24 Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
> 
> > Try [adding] -userpriv to your FEATURES (as in
> > FEATURES="-userpriv") in make.conf
> 
> Nope. Didn't help.
> 
> I see mention of "usersync" in the bug conversation, but I don't know
> what that means.
> 
> I'll just wait for the fixed version, I think.

I did the following:

 chown -R portage:portage /usr/portage /var/lib/portage /usr/local/portage

and that fixed things.  This assumes you use a userid of "portage" in a
group named "portage" to maintain your system.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwnoon@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 07:18:11 Dale wrote:
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> Is it working for you, Dale? :-)
>> So far, so good.  I been using unstable, except for the 9999 version,
>> for quite a while.  Are you saying something is broke and it works for
>> me??  O_O  Seriously??  This is a joke right??
> No joke, I assure you. As Markos pointed out, a bug has already been opened, 
> and I fell over it with a vanilla make.conf.
>
> Unless someone knows of a work-around, I'll stick with the old version of 
> portage until the bug-fix reaches the stable system.
>

So it is broke but works here for me?  I'll get back up after I get my
color back.  I think I'm turning blue.  O_O  & LOL

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 16:44:36 David W Noon wrote:

> I did the following:
> 
>  chown -R portage:portage /usr/portage /var/lib/portage /usr/local/portage
> 
> and that fixed things. This assumes you use a userid of "portage" in a
> group named "portage" to maintain your system.

Nope, that didn't do it either. I'll revert to root:portage for 
/var/lib/portage and root:root for /usr/local/portage, as they were, and wait 
for the official fix.

Thanks anyway.

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-09-10 10:13 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 Sep 2013 07:18:11 Dale wrote:
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> Is it working for you, Dale? :-)
>> So far, so good.  I been using unstable, except for the 9999 version,
>> for quite a while.  Are you saying something is broke and it works for
>> me??  O_O  Seriously??  This is a joke right??
>
> No joke, I assure you. As Markos pointed out, a bug has already been opened,
> and I fell over it with a vanilla make.conf.
>
> Unless someone knows of a work-around, I'll stick with the old version of
> portage until the bug-fix reaches the stable system.

Well, according to that bug, the fix is IN 2.2.1 (well, it says the fix 
is in 2.1.13 and 2.2.0_alpha189, which means it is (should be?) in 2.2.1...

So it can't be this bug?

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 11 Sep 2013 07:14:30 Tanstaafl wrote:

> Well, according to that bug, the fix is IN 2.2.1 (well, it says the fix
> is in 2.1.13 and 2.2.0_alpha189, which means it is (should be?) in 2.2.1...
> 
> So it can't be this bug?

Whether that's true or not, I've found the problem. It was my own fault (so, 
what else is new?)

I have a separate partition for /var/tmp and I'd forgotten to set the 
permissions. I don't know why it ever worked before. It should be fine now that 
I've set perms 1777.

Sorry to cause you palpitations, Dale. Portage wasn't at fault - I was!

-- 
Regards,
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Portage 2.2.1 stabilized?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Sorry to cause you palpitations, Dale. Portage wasn't at fault - I was! 

Well, as some know, I'm disabled.  Right now, my brother is fighting
cancer.  My 80 year old Mom is having issues, took her to the ER the
other day and plan to take her to the regular Dr tomorrow.  Then I add
in local friends that are always coming up with something.  Today I had
to go fix a busted water pipe for a friend.  I'm a bit frazzled which is
why I haven't been posting much the past few weeks. 

All things considered, this is a VERY mild hiccup.  I'm just glad you
got it sorted out and it is working.  Oh, I still try to be funny when I
can and put my smiley face on too.  See below.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

^^^^^--  Yep, still grinning. 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!