[gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Marcus Wanner]

Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the 
entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for 
how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being 
(afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

Marcus

P.S. Mozilla considers this version to be stable/mature and is pushing 
out it as the version most people should use. Why hasn't it been marked 
as stable in the portage tree yet?

[gentoo-user] Re: Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 11/02/2009 07:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:
> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

3.5.3-r1 is actually stable on amd64 but not on x86.  You might want to 
open a bug on bugs.gentoo.org about this.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Marcus Wanner]

On 11/2/2009 1:26 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 07:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:
>> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
>> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
>> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
>> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!
>
> 3.5.3-r1 is actually stable on amd64 but not on x86.  You might want 
> to open a bug on bugs.gentoo.org about this.
>
OK. I will do that.

Marcus

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Alex Schuster]

Marcus Wanner writes:

> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

autounmask -p www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.5.3-r1 shows net-libs/xulrunner 
(for three times which I find strange), but nothing else. Maybe I already 
have some other stuff in package.keywords, but it's not that much. 

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 11/2/2009 12:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:

> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

For mozilla specifically, see below.

In general, you would create a file called /etc/portage/package.keywords 
(or as I prefer, a directory /etc/portage/package.keywords/ and then a 
file within that directory), and put the package name in it.

However, it's generally considered a bad idea to mix and match arch and 
~arch on a single system, since the dependencies cascade pretty quickly. 
  You'll eventually end up with the core packages on your system 
keyworded anyway, which defeats the whole point of running stable.

> P.S. Mozilla considers this version to be stable/mature and is pushing
> out it as the version most people should use. Why hasn't it been marked
> as stable in the portage tree yet?

It may just be an oversight; check bugs.gentoo.org to see if there's 
already a bug report asking it to be stabilized.  If there isn't already 
one, just file a new one.  (It may help to mention that it's stable on 
amd64 already.)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Marcus Wanner]

On 11/2/2009 1:40 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 11/2/2009 12:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:
>
>> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
>> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
>> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
>> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!
>
> For mozilla specifically, see below.
>
> In general, you would create a file called 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords (or as I prefer, a directory 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/ and then a file within that directory), 
> and put the package name in it.
>
> However, it's generally considered a bad idea to mix and match arch 
> and ~arch on a single system, since the dependencies cascade pretty 
> quickly.  You'll eventually end up with the core packages on your 
> system keyworded anyway, which defeats the whole point of running stable.
>
>> P.S. Mozilla considers this version to be stable/mature and is pushing
>> out it as the version most people should use. Why hasn't it been marked
>> as stable in the portage tree yet?
>
> It may just be an oversight; check bugs.gentoo.org to see if there's 
> already a bug report asking it to be stabilized.  If there isn't 
> already one, just file a new one.  (It may help to mention that it's 
> stable on amd64 already.)
>
> --Mike
Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that 
did the trick.

Marcus

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw@cox.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that did
> the trick.
>
> Marcus
>
>

You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
to running stable.

In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.

good luck,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Marcus Wanner]

On 11/2/2009 3:11 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw@cox.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>   
>> Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that did
>> the trick.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>     
>
> You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
> two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
> comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
> you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
> to running stable.
>
> In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
> given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
> starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
> yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.
>
> good luck,
> Mark
>   
Thanks for the tip and the help, I'll make sure to keep that list short. 
The only program I have this kind problem with is firefox, though, with 
everything else I can get by with an older version. It's really becuase 
Mozilla doesn't really support the older versions. Oh well, it will be 
fixed eventually.

Marcus

Re: [gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system to ~arch?

[Alex Schuster]

Mark Knecht writes:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw@cox.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> 
> > Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that
> > did the trick.

> You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
> two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
> comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
> you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
> to running stable.

When I need to unmask something in package.keywords, I prefer to put the 
package along with its version number in it. I leave out the trailing -rN, 
and start with ~ instead of =, which means that minor revision updates 
(increasing the -rN) which often are security fixes are also matched.
Talking about firefox, I just added these two lines before I replied to this 
thread some hours ago:

~www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.5.3
~net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.4

When a newer ~arch xulrunner enters the portage tree, it will not be 
upgraded.

There are also some packages which I like to be always the new version, so I 
leave out the version number. firefox could be such an application. But for 
everything I have to unmask additionally, I add the version numbers.

I use eix-test-obsolete once in a while in order to clean this of redundant 
entries.

> In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
> given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
> starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
> yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.

Oh, my package.keywords is quite large, with about 50 entries. Oh, and the 
300 entries for KDE 4.3.

	Wonko