[gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Philip Webb]

Intending to unmerge Joe (I have Vim & E3 as non-GUI editors available),
I encountered

  "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'app-editors/joe'
   !!! This could be damaging to your system"

I've searched thro'  /usr/portage/profiles/*  for any reference to Joe,
but he doesn't seem to be anywhere.  Can anyone suggest where he's lurking ?

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Mark Knecht]

On 9/4/05, Philip Webb <purslow@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Intending to unmerge Joe (I have Vim & E3 as non-GUI editors available),
> I encountered
> 
>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'app-editors/joe'
>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
> 
> I've searched thro'  /usr/portage/profiles/*  for any reference to Joe,
> but he doesn't seem to be anywhere.  Can anyone suggest where he's lurking ?
> 

/etc/rc.conf possibly? Joe is not in mine but we may be on different profiles.

Cheers,
Mark

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Edward Catmur]

On Sun, 2005-09-04 at 10:30 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> Intending to unmerge Joe (I have Vim & E3 as non-GUI editors available),
> I encountered
> 
>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'app-editors/joe'
>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
> 
> I've searched thro'  /usr/portage/profiles/*  for any reference to Joe,
> but he doesn't seem to be anywhere.  Can anyone suggest where he's lurking ?

Probably as virtual/editor.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Mike Williams]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:30, Philip Webb wrote:
> Intending to unmerge Joe (I have Vim & E3 as non-GUI editors available),
> I encountered
>
>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'app-editors/joe'
>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
>
> I've searched thro'  /usr/portage/profiles/*  for any reference to Joe,
> but he doesn't seem to be anywhere.  Can anyone suggest where he's lurking
> ?

I'd put money on it being considered part of system because it provides 
virtual/editor, which is part of system.
So, just remove it.

-- 
Mike Williams

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Philip Webb]

050904 Mike Williams wrote:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 15:30, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Intending to unmerge Joe (I have Vim & E3 as non-GUI editors available),
>> I encountered
>>   "!!! Trying to unmerge package(s) in system profile. 'app-editors/joe'
>>    !!! This could be damaging to your system"
>> I've searched thro'  /usr/portage/profiles/*  for any reference to Joe,
>> but he doesn't seem to be anywhere.
>> Can anyone suggest where he's lurking ?
> I'd put money on it being considered part of system
> because it provides virtual/editor, which is part of system.

In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says

  virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano

there's no mention of Joe.

Someone else suggested it comes from  /etc/rc.conf , but there I have

  EDITOR="/usr/bin/vim"

Any other suggestions ?  I'm using the 2005.1 profile.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Sven Köhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
> 
>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano

yes, so nano is the default of virtual/editor

> there's no mention of Joe.

no, but joe _provides_ virtual/editor, so that's why portage may think
it's part of system.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Sven Köhler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
> 
>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano

yes, so nano is the default of virtual/editor

> there's no mention of Joe.

no, but joe _provides_ virtual/editor, so that's why portage may think
it's part of system.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 253 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Mike Williams]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 18:42, Philip Webb wrote:
> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
>
>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
>
> there's no mention of Joe.

This only specifies the default for the virtual.

You've installed joe, so it provides virtual/editor, thus is considered part 
of system.

-- 
Mike Williams

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Willie Wong]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> > I'd put money on it being considered part of system
> > because it provides virtual/editor, which is part of system.
> 
> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
> 
>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
> 
> there's no mention of Joe.
> 

In the ebuild it specifies 

PROVIDE="virtual/editor"

the virtual/editor thing in the profiles just specifies that the
default install will use app-editors/nano to satisfy the
virtual/editor requirement in system. If you have ANYTHING at all that
provides virtual/editor, it will satisfy the system. But at the same
time, if you want to unmerge anything that provides virtual/editor,
the warning will come up. 

For example, currently, on my desktop,

[02:21 PM]wwong ~ $ emerge search nano
Searching...   
[ Results for search key : nano ]
[ Applications found : 4 ]
 
*  app-editors/nano
      Latest version available: 1.3.7
      Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
      Size of downloaded files: 985 kB
      Homepage:    http://www.nano-editor.org/
      Description: GNU GPL'd Pico clone with more functionality
      License:     GPL-2

[02:22 PM]wwong ~ $ cat /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals | grep editor
virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
virtual/emacs                           app-editors/emacs
virtual/xemacs                          app-editors/xemacs

[02:19 PM]wwong proto-gen $ emerge --pretend virtual/editor

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild   R   ] app-editors/gvim-6.3.084 

So... although nano is the "default editor" it is not installed on my 
system.  And I have at least gvim to satisfy the virtual/editor
requirements in system (though I usually use vim, which also satisfies
the requirement). In fact, if you 

grep "virtual/editor" /usr/portage/app-editors/*/*ebuild

you'd see that easyedit, elvis, emacs, gvim, jed, joe, nano, ne, nvi,
teco, vile, vim, xemacs all provide that function. 

So in short, just go ahead and unmerge Joe if you aren't going to use
it. 

W
-- 
"There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily 
escaped the chronicler's mind." 

- This line perhaps best sums up the whole book. 
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 23 days, 21:21
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Philip Webb]

050904 Willie Wong wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:42:32PM -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
>> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
>>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
>> there's no mention of Joe.
> In the ebuild it specifies 
>   PROVIDE="virtual/editor"
> the virtual/editor thing in the profiles just specifies
> that the default install will use app-editors/nano
> to satisfy the virtual/editor requirement in system.
> If you have ANYTHING at all that provides virtual/editor,
> it will satisfy the system. But at the same time,
> if you want to unmerge anything that provides virtual/editor,
> the warning will come up. 

Thanx a lot for your very clear & detailed explanation [snipped]:
I get the same results from your CLI commands as you do;
I tried 'emerge -Cp vim' & got the same warning as for Joe.

The 'PROVIDE' line in ebuilds is new to me:
perhaps its purpose & effects should be better documented.

I would suggest to the devs -- I have a parallel query re Devfsd -- 
that the big red warning is something of a big red herring
& that Portage needs to be taught either to see what else is installed
or to make a less dramatic intervention.

I am as always very grateful to the devs for their volunteer efforts
& today's queries are partly for my own education
& partly to help make Portage a bit more sensitive.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Holly Bostick]

Mike Williams schreef:
> On Sunday 04 September 2005 18:42, Philip Webb wrote:
> 
>> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
>> 
>> virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
>> 
>> there's no mention of Joe.
> 
> 
> This only specifies the default for the virtual.
> 
> You've installed joe, so it provides virtual/editor, thus is 
> considered part of system.
> 

Like 7 people have said that Joe provides virtual/editor, which of
course it does.

What I'm surprised at is that no one has said,

"Look in /var/cache/edb/virtuals, where you will likely see that Joe is
set as (one of) the in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual system."

You may also see that there are multiple editors set for virtual/editor,
since you have multiple programs installed that provide this function,
and I have seen multiple settings for several virtuals on my
system, such as  jre and linux-sources.

You're not going to avoid the scary message (because you are
uninstalling a system package), but you might want to just
re-check your virtuals file after unmerging Joe, to make sure that
something is still set there-- if not, re-emerge vim or nano or
whatever, just to reind Portage that something is installed to handle
the virtual.

HTH,
Holly



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Mariusz Pękala]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1319 bytes --]

> > I'd put money on it being considered part of system
> > because it provides virtual/editor, which is part of system.
> 
> In  /usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals , it says
> 
>   virtual/editor                          app-editors/nano
> 
> there's no mention of Joe.
> 
> Someone else suggested it comes from  /etc/rc.conf , but there I have
> 
>   EDITOR="/usr/bin/vim"
> 
> Any other suggestions ?  I'm using the 2005.1 profile.
> 

/usr/portage/profiles/base/virtuals lists DEFAULT package that provides
given virtual.

<quote>
# This file describes the packages that by default satisfy a certain virtual
# That this file exists in the base profile implies that these packages will
# work on any architecture that needs that virtual
</quote>

cthulhu ~ #  grep PROVIDE $(equery which joe)
PROVIDE="virtual/editor"
cthulhu ~ #  grep PROVIDE $(equery which vim)
PROVIDE="virtual/editor"

I suppose that if you have vim installed you may just ignore the
warning, and the warning will be issued on any unmerge of every package
that provides a virtual/editor, not taking care whether any other
installed package provides the same virtual - not a big problem, just
minor nuisance.

Howgh.
;-)

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by "grep -i virus $MESSAGE"

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Philip Webb]

050904 Holly Bostick wrote:
> I'm surprised no one has said,
> "Look in  /var/cache/edb/virtuals , where you will likely see
> that Joe is set as an in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual system".

Yes, it is, along with Vim Gvim & Nano.  However, (1) that file still lists

  virtual/alsa sys-kernel/gentoo-dev-sources
  virtual/dhcpc net-misc/dhcpcd
  virtual/dev-manager sys-fs/devfsd
  virtual/mpg123 media-sound/mpg123

& (2) it was last updated 050122 .

Re (1), I don't have a sound card & have removed all the sound packages,
so 'alsa' & 'mpg123' should not be listed:
really, sound is not a requirement of any kind for a working system;
I removed Dhcpcd 041114, as it had ceased to be part of 'system';
Devfsd was one of the requirements which caused me to ask the question.

Re (2) & following from (1), the file doesn't seem to be accurate
nor does it seem to be kept upto-date by anything:
the only package I emerged 050122 was Bin86 , needed to handle the MBR.

So thanx for your fresh point, but it really just raised another question.

My basic purpose is to understand how the Gentoo system works
& sometimes -- probably here -- this uncovers strange activities
which have been going on underneath some stone unnoticed by everyone.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Nagatoro]

Philip Webb wrote:
> 050904 Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>>I'm surprised no one has said,
>>"Look in  /var/cache/edb/virtuals , where you will likely see
>>that Joe is set as an in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual system".
> 
> 
> Yes, it is, along with Vim Gvim & Nano.  However, (1) that file still lists
> 
Hmm, mine is empty... Could you have an outdated cache tree?

-- 
Naga
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Holly Bostick]

Philip Webb schreef:
> 050904 Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>> I'm surprised no one has said, "Look in  /var/cache/edb/virtuals ,
>> where you will likely see that Joe is set as an in-use
>> virtual/editor(s) on your actual system".
> 
> 
> Yes, it is, along with Vim Gvim & Nano.  However, (1) that file still
> lists
> 
> virtual/alsa sys-kernel/gentoo-dev-sources virtual/dhcpc
> net-misc/dhcpcd virtual/dev-manager sys-fs/devfsd virtual/mpg123
> media-sound/mpg123
> 
> & (2) it was last updated 050122 .
> 
> Re (1), I don't have a sound card & have removed all the sound
> packages, so 'alsa' & 'mpg123' should not be listed: really, sound is
> not a requirement of any kind for a working system; I removed Dhcpcd
> 041114, as it had ceased to be part of 'system'; Devfsd was one of
> the requirements which caused me to ask the question.
> 
> Re (2) & following from (1), the file doesn't seem to be accurate nor
> does it seem to be kept upto-date by anything: the only package I
> emerged 050122 was Bin86 , needed to handle the MBR.
> 
> So thanx for your fresh point, but it really just raised another
> question.
> 
> My basic purpose is to understand how the Gentoo system works &
> sometimes -- probably here -- this uncovers strange activities which
> have been going on underneath some stone unnoticed by everyone.
> 

I would be interested in this question as well, since in the course of
looking at this file I noticed:

sys-fs/devfsd still listed (along with udev) as virtual/dev-manager
(devfsd was still installed, so I uninstalled it and the entry was not
removed);

sys-kernel/mm-sources still listed (along with gentoo-sources) as
providing linux-sources and alsa, despite the fact that all versions of
mm-sources have long been removed (I never used it, actually).

I removed the redundant entries manually, and have so far encountered no
problems (and expect none), but I do find it odd that I had to do that
at all, and would love to know why.

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Mike Williams]

On Sunday 04 September 2005 20:23, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Like 7 people have said that Joe provides virtual/editor, which of
> course it does.
>
> What I'm surprised at is that no one has said,
>
> "Look in /var/cache/edb/virtuals, where you will likely see that Joe is
> set as (one of) the in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual system."

Unfortunantly portage no longer uses that, it generates/checks virtuals on the 
fly I believe.

This is the contents on /var/cache/edb on a machine I installed from 2005.1 
just recently.

nicole ~ # ls -lh /var/cache/edb/
total 12K
-rw-r--r--  1 root root       4 Sep  1 20:46 counter
drwxrwsr-x  4 root portage 4.0K Aug 25 19:13 dep
-rw-rw-r--  1 root portage 1.1K Sep  1 20:46 mtimedb

-- 
Mike Williams
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 484 bytes --]

On Monday 05 September 2005 04:23, Holly Bostick wrote:
> What I'm surprised at is that no one has said,
>
> "Look in /var/cache/edb/virtuals, where you will likely see that Joe is
> set as (one of) the in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual system."

/var/cache/edb/virtuals is a relic from 2.0.50. In that big message 
displayed at the end of merging any of the 2.0.51 series that nobody reads, 
it states that virtuals are now calculated on the fly.

-- 
Jason Stubbs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Holly Bostick]

Jason Stubbs schreef:
> On Monday 05 September 2005 04:23, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
>> What I'm surprised at is that no one has said,
>> 
>> "Look in /var/cache/edb/virtuals, where you will likely see that
>> Joe is set as (one of) the in-use virtual/editor(s) on your actual
>> system."
> 
> 
> /var/cache/edb/virtuals is a relic from 2.0.50. In that big message 
> displayed at the end of merging any of the 2.0.51 series that nobody
> reads, it states that virtuals are now calculated on the fly.
> 

So I could delete the whole file without consequence?

And OK, doesn't that mean that someone should submit an enhancement bug
to b.g.o indicating that Portage should check whether you are emerging
*one of* the packages that provides a given virtual, or whether you're
unmerging *the only* package that provides a virtual (similar to the
previous SLOTS issue)?

Maybe it's time to start cleaning up 'big scary messages' that alarm
users unnecessarily (because unmerging Joe in this instance is not going
to break anything, but there are instances where it might, yet the
message does not distinguish one way or another).

Holly
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ?

[Jason Stubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --]

On Monday 05 September 2005 20:44, Holly Bostick wrote:
> Jason Stubbs schreef:
> > /var/cache/edb/virtuals is a relic from 2.0.50. In that big message
> > displayed at the end of merging any of the 2.0.51 series that nobody
> > reads, it states that virtuals are now calculated on the fly.
>
> So I could delete the whole file without consequence?

Yes.

> And OK, doesn't that mean that someone should submit an enhancement bug
> to b.g.o indicating that Portage should check whether you are emerging
> *one of* the packages that provides a given virtual, or whether you're
> unmerging *the only* package that provides a virtual (similar to the
> previous SLOTS issue)?
>
> Maybe it's time to start cleaning up 'big scary messages' that alarm
> users unnecessarily (because unmerging Joe in this instance is not going
> to break anything, but there are instances where it might, yet the
> message does not distinguish one way or another).

I've already posted a patch to gentoo-dev@g.o for feedback as the issue came 
up there as well. Apparently there was another dev that was aware of the 
issue, but he never spoke up and I have not seen any bugs with regard to 
this either. Maybe it's time to start reporting?

-- 
Jason Stubbs

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]