[gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
amongst other packages as well.

I don't use LVM on my system.

If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':

equery d sys-fs/lvm2
 * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])

equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
-device-mapper

equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
-device-mapper

equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
-debug
+nls
-remote-access

$ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
-cryptsetup

/usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
<snip>
    >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66

What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?

What would you recommend doing about it?

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
> amongst other packages as well.
>
> I don't use LVM on my system.
>
> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>
> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>
> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
> -device-mapper
>
> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
> -device-mapper
>
> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
> -debug
> +nls
> -remote-access
>
> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
> -cryptsetup
>
> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
> <snip>
>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>
> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?

Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.

> What would you recommend doing about it?

What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).

If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
then you will need LVM2 also.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On 08/22/2014 10:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
>> amongst other packages as well.
>>
>> I don't use LVM on my system.
>>
>> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
>> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>>
>> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
>> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
>> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>>
>> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
>> -device-mapper
>>
>> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
>> -device-mapper
>>
>> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
>> -debug
>> +nls
>> -remote-access
>>
>> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
>> -cryptsetup
>>
>> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
>> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
>> <snip>
>>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>>
>> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?
> Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
> it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
> and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.
>
>> What would you recommend doing about it?
> What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
> sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
> still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).
>
> If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
> then you will need LVM2 also.
>
> Regards.

Looks like I've got a couple of apps that do require udisks-1 to run:
equery d sys-fs/udisks
 * These packages depend on sys-fs/udisks:
gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2 (udisks ? >=sys-fs/udisks-1.97:2)
xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 (udisks ? sys-fs/udisks:0)

So I'm going to have to keep lvm2 then.

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 10:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
>>> amongst other packages as well.
>>>
>>> I don't use LVM on my system.
>>>
>>> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
>>> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>>>
>>> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
>>> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
>>> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>>>
>>> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
>>> -device-mapper
>>>
>>> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
>>> -device-mapper
>>>
>>> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
>>> -debug
>>> +nls
>>> -remote-access
>>>
>>> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
>>> -cryptsetup
>>>
>>> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
>>> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
>>> <snip>
>>>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>>>
>>> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?
>> Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
>> it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
>> and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.
>>
>>> What would you recommend doing about it?
>> What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
>> sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
>> still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).
>>
>> If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
>> then you will need LVM2 also.
>>
>> Regards.
>
> Looks like I've got a couple of apps that do require udisks-1 to run:
> equery d sys-fs/udisks
>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/udisks:
> gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2 (udisks ? >=sys-fs/udisks-1.97:2)

gvfs depends on sys-fs/udisk:2, so this one doesn't need udisks-1.

> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 (udisks ? sys-fs/udisks:0)

What does xfce4-power-manager uses udisks for? You could try to emerge
it with USE="-udisks" and see if you miss some functionality. If you
don't, you can get rid of udisks-1 and LVM2.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On 08/23/2014 09:53 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2014 10:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
>>>> amongst other packages as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't use LVM on my system.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
>>>> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>>>>
>>>> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>>>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
>>>> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
>>>> -debug
>>>> +nls
>>>> -remote-access
>>>>
>>>> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
>>>> -cryptsetup
>>>>
>>>> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
>>>> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
>>>> <snip>
>>>>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>>>>
>>>> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?
>>> Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
>>> it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
>>> and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.
>>>
>>>> What would you recommend doing about it?
>>> What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
>>> sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
>>> still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).
>>>
>>> If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
>>> then you will need LVM2 also.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> Looks like I've got a couple of apps that do require udisks-1 to run:
>> equery d sys-fs/udisks
>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/udisks:
>> gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2 (udisks ? >=sys-fs/udisks-1.97:2)
> gvfs depends on sys-fs/udisk:2, so this one doesn't need udisks-1.
>
>> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 (udisks ? sys-fs/udisks:0)
> What does xfce4-power-manager uses udisks for? You could try to emerge
> it with USE="-udisks" and see if you miss some functionality. If you
> don't, you can get rid of udisks-1 and LVM2.
>
> Regards.
Thanks for pointing that out. I overlooked that. I'll give that a try.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Samuli Suominen]

On 23/08/14 09:53, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2014 10:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
>>>> amongst other packages as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't use LVM on my system.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
>>>> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>>>>
>>>> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>>>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
>>>> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
>>>> -debug
>>>> +nls
>>>> -remote-access
>>>>
>>>> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
>>>> -cryptsetup
>>>>
>>>> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
>>>> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
>>>> <snip>
>>>>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>>>>
>>>> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?
>>> Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
>>> it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
>>> and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.
>>>
>>>> What would you recommend doing about it?
>>> What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
>>> sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
>>> still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).
>>>
>>> If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
>>> then you will need LVM2 also.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> Looks like I've got a couple of apps that do require udisks-1 to run:
>> equery d sys-fs/udisks
>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/udisks:
>> gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2 (udisks ? >=sys-fs/udisks-1.97:2)
> gvfs depends on sys-fs/udisk:2, so this one doesn't need udisks-1.
>
>> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 (udisks ? sys-fs/udisks:0)
> What does xfce4-power-manager uses udisks for? You could try to emerge
> it with USE="-udisks" and see if you miss some functionality. If you
> don't, you can get rid of udisks-1 and LVM2.
>
> Regards.

xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
spinning, like to reduce it

xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
use udisks anymore

so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
required

thanks,
samuli

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On 08/23/2014 09:53 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 1:47 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/22/2014 10:36 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
>>> <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> As I updated my system today, I noticed that 'sys-fs/lvm2' got updated
>>>> amongst other packages as well.
>>>>
>>>> I don't use LVM on my system.
>>>>
>>>> If I understand it correctly, 'sys-fs/lvm2' is a required dependency for
>>>> 'sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1':
>>>>
>>>> equery d sys-fs/lvm2
>>>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/lvm2:
>>>> sys-block/parted-3.1-r1 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-boot/grub-2.00_p5107-r2 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66)
>>>> sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3 (cryptsetup ? sys-fs/lvm2[udev(+)])
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-block/parted | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u sys-boot/grub | grep device-mapper
>>>> -device-mapper
>>>>
>>>> equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1'
>>>> -debug
>>>> +nls
>>>> -remote-access
>>>>
>>>> $ equery -q u '=sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3' | grep cryptsetup
>>>> -cryptsetup
>>>>
>>>> /usr/portage/sys-fs/udisks/udisks-1.0.5-r1.ebuild:17,24
>>>> COMMON_DEPEND=">=dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100
>>>> <snip>
>>>>     >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.66
>>>>
>>>> What are my options, if I were to remove 'sys-fs/lvm2' altogether?
>>> Remove sys-fs/udisks:0, which depends unconditionally on LVM2; also,
>>> it's on life support, AFAIR. sys-fs/udisks:2 is actively maintained
>>> and it depends only conditionally on LVM2.
>>>
>>>> What would you recommend doing about it?
>>> What does depend on sys-fs/udisks? What's the output from "equery d
>>> sys-fs/udisks"? Most applications switched to udisks-2, but some are
>>> still stuck with udisks-1 (XMBC, now Kodi, comes to mind).
>>>
>>> If an application that you absolutely need requires sys-fs/udisks:0,
>>> then you will need LVM2 also.
>>>
>>> Regards.
>> Looks like I've got a couple of apps that do require udisks-1 to run:
>> equery d sys-fs/udisks
>>  * These packages depend on sys-fs/udisks:
>> gnome-base/gvfs-1.20.2 (udisks ? >=sys-fs/udisks-1.97:2)
> gvfs depends on sys-fs/udisk:2, so this one doesn't need udisks-1.
>
>> xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 (udisks ? sys-fs/udisks:0)
> What does xfce4-power-manager uses udisks for? You could try to emerge
> it with USE="-udisks" and see if you miss some functionality. If you
> don't, you can get rid of udisks-1 and LVM2.
>
> Regards.
I've put xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager -udisk into
/etc/portage/package.use.
Ran emerge -avuND @world, which only reinstalled the xfce power mananger
with udisks disabled.
emerge --depclean suggested removing the apps listed below, which
happened to be all interdependent:
sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.2-r1 sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109
sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29 sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.37

equery d sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools
 * These packages depend on sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools:
sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109 (thin ? >=sys-block/thin-provisioning-tools-0.3.0)
$ equery d sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus
 * These packages depend on sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus:
sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.37 (>=sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.24)
$ equery d sys-apps/sg3_utils
 * These packages depend on sys-apps/sg3_utils:
sys-apps/rescan-scsi-bus-1.29 (>=sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.24)
sys-fs/udisks-1.0.5-r1 (>=sys-apps/sg3_utils-1.27.20090411)

So I had portage remove those.

The Linux from Scratch page for xfce4-power-manger 1.2.0,
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xfce/xfce4-power-manager.html,
lists udisks as an optional dependency.

Thanks very much for your help.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
> spinning, like to reduce it
>
> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
> use udisks anymore
>
> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
> required
>
> thanks,
> samuli
Thanks for your response.

I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
unstable packages as much as possible.

Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
braking anything unnecessarily?

Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
>> spinning, like to reduce it
>>
>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
>> use udisks anymore
>>
>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
>> required
>>
>> thanks,
>> samuli
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
> unstable packages as much as possible.
> 
> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
> braking anything unnecessarily?


I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong
with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly.

What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other
basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc
with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain
to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever
tested that combination).

What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package
(xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly
unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's
purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and
the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed.

So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with
everything else you have.

The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can
possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big
picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done
above.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On 08/23/2014 11:22 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
>>> spinning, like to reduce it
>>>
>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
>>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
>>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
>>> use udisks anymore
>>>
>>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
>>> required
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> samuli
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
>> unstable packages as much as possible.
>>
>> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
>> braking anything unnecessarily?
>
> I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong
> with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly.
>
> What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other
> basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc
> with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain
> to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever
> tested that combination).
>
> What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package
> (xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly
> unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's
> purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and
> the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed.
>
> So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with
> everything else you have.
>
> The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can
> possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big
> picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done
> above.
>
>
>
I'll give that whirl. Thanks.

Re: [gentoo-user] re: sys-fs/lvm2 question

[Alexander Kapshuk]

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Alexander Kapshuk
<alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/23/2014 11:22 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 23/08/2014 09:51, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>> On 08/23/2014 10:31 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.0 and older uses UDisks 1.x for controlling disk
>>>> spinning, like to reduce it
>>>>
>>>> xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1 and higher removed UDisks 1.x dependency and
>>>> the spindown feature, supposedly it had issues
>>>> and doesn't work with SSD anyway... anyways, upstream decision to not
>>>> use udisks anymore
>>>>
>>>> so, i recommend upgrading to 1.3.1, adding it to package.keywords if
>>>> required
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> samuli
>>> Thanks for your response.
>>>
>>> I remember being advised on this list against mixing both stable and
>>> unstable packages as much as possible.
>>>
>>> Does that still hold true? Or would it be OK to pull this one in without
>>> braking anything unnecessarily?
>>
>> I think you have a wrong impression. There is actually not much wrong
>> with mixing stable and unstable as long as you do it sensibly.
>>
>> What you shouldn't do is to wantonly mix packages in @stable and other
>> basic libs and still expect it to work. Stable gcc and unstable glibc
>> with jpeg, zlib and openssl all mixed and matched any old way is certain
>> to show inconsistencies (as you will be the only person who has ever
>> tested that combination).
>>
>> What is being proposed here is that you take one userland package
>> (xfce4-power-manager) and upgrade it to the new version. It's highly
>> unlikely to break anything and I can tell that just by looking at it's
>> purpose and where it fits in the stack. It will either work or not, and
>> the list of things that might link to it are a rather small list indeed.
>>
>> So just give it a spin, you can always revert if it's incompatible with
>> everything else you have.
>>
>> The answer to the last question you pose is correctly "mu" as no-one can
>> possibly answer it properly. The best we can do for you is paint the big
>> picture and ask you to try then report back if it works, as I have done
>> above.
>>
>>
>>
> I'll give that whirl. Thanks.
>


I updated the xfce4-power-manger as suggested:
equery -q l '*power-manager*'
xfce-extra/xfce4-power-manager-1.3.1

So far, I have not experienced anything abnormal.

Thanks for the list's help.