[gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[maxim wexler]

Hello group,

I recently sync'ed portage, but when I did #emerge
digg2ogg it installed version 0.8 which is way out of
date. 

I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
the latest versions of software when needed.

Here's the sync line in make.conf.

SYNC="rsync://rsync.namerica.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"

Perhaps I should be adding more? Replace with
something else?

-Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[maxim wexler]

>digg2ogg

should be dir2ogg


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:

>>digg2ogg
> 
> should be dir2ogg

0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Don't SANFORIZE me!!

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> · maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:
> >>digg2ogg
> >
> > should be dir2ogg
>
> 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
> version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?

Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different (ie: 
newer) version offered. Good enough? 

-d

-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Iain Buchanan]

On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 22:53 -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> > · maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:
> > >>digg2ogg
> > >
> > > should be dir2ogg
> >
> > 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
> > version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?
> 
> Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different (ie: 
> newer) version offered. Good enough? 

Can't argue with that *lol* can I call you UPSTREAM? ;)

This is what I do in cases like this (not aimed at UPSTREAM, but for
anyone's reference :)

1. look in /usr/portage to see if newer ebuild exists.
   - if it does, find out whether it's in ~x86, or hard masked, and
decide if I want to explicitly unmask it (usually I do).

2. if no ebuild exists, check bugs.gentoo.org and see if anyone has
requested it / submitted an ebuild that I can put in my overlay.

3. if not, I look at the app's homepage and see if I really want / need
the latest features, and if so I submit a version bump request on
bugs.gentoo.org, providing as much help in the testing process as I can.

4. if it's a very popular app, like gnome, then I look for unofficial
ebuilds and put them in my overlay.

If you try any of these options (unmask, overlay, or unofficial ebuild),
then be prepared for issues / bugs.  But that's what the game is all
about :)

HTH,
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

In order to discover who you are, first learn who everybody else is;
you're what's left.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:

> Quoth the Alexander Skwar
>> · maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:
>> >>digg2ogg
>> >
>> > should be dir2ogg
>>
>> 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
>> version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?
> 
> Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different (ie: 
> newer) version offered. Good enough? 

No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters is,
what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter what
you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be offered?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
A closed mouth gathers no foot.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:
> > Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> >
> >> · maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:
> >> >>digg2ogg
> >> >
> >> > should be dir2ogg
> >>
> >> 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
> >> version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?
> >
> > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
> > (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
>
> No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters is,
> what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter what
> you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be offered?
>
> Alexander Skwar
> --
> A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version 0.8 
was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases since 
then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. 0.8 is old 
and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!

Surely I don't need to explain the concept of how software improves with new 
development? You're not using GCC 2.95 and kernel 2.2.10 are you?

Confused by your remarks,
-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Willie Wong]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
> > > (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
> >
> > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters is,
> > what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter what
> > you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be offered?
 
> Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version 0.8 
> was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases since 
> then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. 0.8 is old 
> and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!

Guys, 

Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation 
that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different 
things?

Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question 
from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge 
dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a 
lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my 
friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget, 
rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically 
go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a 
program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity). 

But it seems clear to me now that Darren is actually asking about 
whether it is polite to give the devs a gentle nudge, asking them
to remove an old, buggy version of software from the portage tree
and add/stablize newer, updated versions (and how to go about doing
so if it is polite). 

I am actually curious about the same thing: some of the packages that 
I use are also a year or two out of date, for the most part I can 
get around it by using overlays and third-party ebuilds, and I am
making an effort to learn how to write ebuilds, but it would be nice 
to see those ebuilds committed to the official tree.

W
-- 
Willie W. Wong                                      wwong@math.princeton.edu
408 Fine Hall,  Department of Mathematics,  Princeton University,  Princeton
A mathematician's reputation rests on the number of bad proofs he has given.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Willie Wong
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> > > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be
> > > > different (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
> > >
> > > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters
> > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter
> > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be
> > > offered?
> >
> > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version
> > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases
> > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features.
> > 0.8 is old and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!
>
> Guys,
>
> Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation
> that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different
> things?

Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;)

> Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question
> from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge
> dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a
> lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my
> friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget,
> rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically
> go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a
> program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity).

Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here because I 
wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current stable 
version is long outdated.

That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I was 
simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different version 
should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?".

If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstream 
version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't. That's not what he 
wrote though. The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage 
should offer a more current version of the software, which is the source of 
my confusion. I don't think that anyone here will argue that the software in 
portage should stagnate on versions years out of date. 

> But it seems clear to me now that Darren is actually asking about
> whether it is polite to give the devs a gentle nudge, asking them
> to remove an old, buggy version of software from the portage tree
> and add/stablize newer, updated versions (and how to go about doing
> so if it is polite).

I already did give a gentle nudge ;)

> I am actually curious about the same thing: some of the packages that
> I use are also a year or two out of date, for the most part I can
> get around it by using overlays and third-party ebuilds, and I am
> making an effort to learn how to write ebuilds, but it would be nice
> to see those ebuilds committed to the official tree.

Open a bug (with severity 'enhancement') and ask for a version bump. If you 
can write an ebuild that has been tested and works, even better...

> W
> --
> Willie W. Wong                                     
> wwong@math.princeton.edu 408 Fine Hall,  Department of Mathematics, 
> Princeton University,  Princeton A mathematician's reputation rests on the
> number of bad proofs he has given.

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:

> Quoth the Willie Wong
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
>> > > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be
>> > > > different (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
>> > >
>> > > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters
>> > > is, what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter
>> > > what you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be
>> > > offered?
>> >
>> > Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version
>> > 0.8 was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases
>> > since then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features.
>> > 0.8 is old and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation
>> that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different
>> things?
> 
> Heat? I'm not mad, just confused ;)
> 
>> Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question
>> from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge
>> dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a
>> lack of understanding of how the portage tree works (well, some of my
>> friends do actually think that the package management system [aptget,
>> rpm, portage, etc.] would actually be smart enough to automatically
>> go on the internet and find and install the latest version of a
>> program, so I wouldn't put any misconception past human capacity).
> 
> Please note Willie, I am not the original poster. I jumped in here because I 
> wrote the script that the OP is asking about, and I agree the current stable 
> version is long outdated.
> 
> That said, I _do_ realize that the OP was asking a flawed question. I was 
> simply responding to Alexander: "Why do you think, that a different version 
> should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?".

But with a wrong answer :) In the tree, the latest stable is 0.8, check
out: <http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=dir2ogg>. There *IS*
no 0.9.3. Granted, there *should* be a 0.9.3 version, but there just
isn't. And stable is 0.8, not even 0.9.2.

As I wrote: Why does he think, that a different version than 0.8 should
be offered, when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"?

> If he means "why should portage automatically go grab the newest upstream 
> version", then I agree with his implication: it shouldn't.

That's what I wrote, yes.

> That's not what he  
> wrote though.

It is.

> The wording of his comment reads like he is asking why portage  
> should offer a more current version of the software,

That's what I asked maxim. Why does he think, that a different version,
than the latest stable in-tree-version (ie. 0.8) should be offered
when he runs "emerge dir2ogg"?

Alexander Skwar
-- 
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Willie Wong <wwong@princeton.edu>:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
>> > > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
>> > > (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
>> >
>> > No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters is,
>> > what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter what
>> > you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be offered?
>  
>> Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version 0.8 
>> was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases since 
>> then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. 0.8 is old 
>> and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!
> 
> Guys, 
> 
> Just to prevent the heat from escalating, may I offer my observation 
> that the two of you seems to be arguing about completely different 
> things?
> 
> Alexander (and I, likewise) probably misunderstood Darren's question 
> from the start: when he posted, I thought his expectation that "emerge 
> dir2ogg" should bring in a newer version than what was offered was a 
> lack of understanding of how the portage tree works

maxim is the OP, not Darren. Darren, on the other hand, seems to have 
some misunderstanding about how portage works. Just because there's
a newer version of some program out there in the wild, doesn't mean,
that it'll be available to emerge/portage through some sort of magic.

> But it seems clear to me now that Darren is actually asking about 
> whether it is polite to give the devs a gentle nudge, asking them
> to remove an old, buggy version of software from the portage tree
> and add/stablize newer, updated versions (and how to go about doing
> so if it is polite). 

Of course it is. You add a bug to bugzilla informing the maintainer
of the version bump. You can find out the maintainer of a package
by looking at the metadata.xml file to be found in the portage tree
directory of the package (eg. /usr/portage/media-sound/dir2ogg/metadata.xml).
What I normally do, is that I enter such a bug and add this herd
and/or maintainer to the CC list.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Dear Lord: Please make my words sweet and tender, for tomorrow I may
have to eat them.


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:

> Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> 
>> Darren, on the other hand, seems to have
>> some misunderstanding about how portage works.
> 
> Stop being so bloody obtuse and read my response to Willie. I know perfectly 
> well how portage works. I am taking issues with your vague responses which 
> are open to several interpretations.

No, they are not. I said, that it is unreasonable to expect, that
emerge should offer a version other than 0.8 of dir2ogg, as that's
the latest stable. Or rather, I asked maxim why he thinks, that
a version, other than the latest stable (ie. 0.8), should be
offered.

> You would be well served by writing a clear and concise response

I did. If you try to interprete it somehow and you get it wrong,
than I'm terribly sorry for that, but that's just not my problem.

> rather than  
> another open-ended question if you want to get your point accross.

My point is, that emerge offers, by default, to install the latest
stable version. I wanted to make maxim think about why he expects
a different version.

>> Just because there's
>> a newer version of some program out there in the wild, doesn't mean,
>> that it'll be available to emerge/portage through some sort of magic.
> 
> That's certainly not what I think,

I didn't say so, did I?


Alexander Skwar
-- 
<rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
      microsoft's backorifice
<rcw> that's the backoffice logo


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Devon Miller]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3474 bytes --]

You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable. And there are 2
different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable
as defined in portage.

In this case, the "upstream stable" is 0.9.3 and the "portage stable" os 0.8
.

Not appreciating the distinction, Maxim was asking why he's not getting the
latest stable (expecting the "upstream stable").

Alexander's comments reflect the "portage stable", but don't take in to
account that portage does not always keep up. In fact, in this case it's
languished rather badly.

0.9.1 was added to bugzilla (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87626)
in Apr-05
It looks like it was added to portage in Nov-05
It's been in portage for 11 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's
still ~x86.

0.9.2 was added to bugzilla (http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=) in
Dec-05
It l was added to portage in Feb-06
It's been in portage for 8 months, with no bugs filed against it, and it's
still ~x86.

Now, Darren has added a bug for 0.9.3 and a month later, it's still waiting
to get added to portage.
His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now.

So, while Alexander is technically correct, (emerge is doing exactly what it
should) this not a good thing, because portage is still delivering older,
buggy code. Unfortunately, getting ebuilds marked stable requires the
intervention of a Gentoo developer and while the documentation says what
*should* happen, it does not say what to do when something falls through the
cracks.

I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers
handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a
comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added
as ~x86

dcm

On 10/19/06, Alexander Skwar <listen@alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
>
> Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:
>
> > Quoth the Alexander Skwar
> >
> >> Darren, on the other hand, seems to have
> >> some misunderstanding about how portage works.
> >
> > Stop being so bloody obtuse and read my response to Willie. I know
> perfectly
> > well how portage works. I am taking issues with your vague responses
> which
> > are open to several interpretations.
>
> No, they are not. I said, that it is unreasonable to expect, that
> emerge should offer a version other than 0.8 of dir2ogg, as that's
> the latest stable. Or rather, I asked maxim why he thinks, that
> a version, other than the latest stable (ie. 0.8), should be
> offered.
>
> > You would be well served by writing a clear and concise response
>
> I did. If you try to interprete it somehow and you get it wrong,
> than I'm terribly sorry for that, but that's just not my problem.
>
> > rather than
> > another open-ended question if you want to get your point accross.
>
> My point is, that emerge offers, by default, to install the latest
> stable version. I wanted to make maxim think about why he expects
> a different version.
>
> >> Just because there's
> >> a newer version of some program out there in the wild, doesn't mean,
> >> that it'll be available to emerge/portage through some sort of magic.
> >
> > That's certainly not what I think,
>
> I didn't say so, did I?
>
>
> Alexander Skwar
> --
> <rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
>       microsoft's backorifice
> <rcw> that's the backoffice logo
>
>
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4359 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

Devon Miller <devon.c.miller@gmail.com>:

> You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable.

Yep. For emerge, all that matters is the tree. Nothing else is 
important - actually, nothing else exists, as overlays also become
part of the tree, sort of.

> And there are 2 
> different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable
> as defined in portage.

Yep. The latter is all that matters for emerge.

> Not appreciating the distinction, Maxim was asking why he's not getting the
> latest stable (expecting the "upstream stable").

We don't know what Maxim expected. Hence my question.

> Alexander's comments reflect the "portage stable",

Yes.

> but don't take in to 
> account that portage does not always keep up. 

As it doesn't matter to what emerge offers.

> In fact, in this case it's 
> languished rather badly.

Yes.

> His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now.

I agree with this.

> 
> So, while Alexander is technically correct, (emerge is doing exactly what it
> should)

Yep. I asked, why maxim expected a different result.

> this not a good thing, because portage is still delivering older, 
> buggy code.

Yep.

> I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers
> handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a
> comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added
> as ~x86

Very good suggestion!

Alexander Skwar
-- 
* BenC wonders why he has upgraded to 3.3.5-1 before teh X maintainer


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Willie Wong]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 10:38:20AM -0400, Penguin Lover Devon Miller squawked:
> I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers
> handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a
> comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added
> as ~x86

Wonderful suggestion. Also answers my question. Thanks. 

W
-- 
I float like an anchor and sting like a moth.
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 55 days, 10:52
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Devon Miller
> You both seem to be arguing about what constitutes stable. And there are 2
> different definitions: stable as defined by the upstream source and stable
> as defined in portage.

Wrong. I am perfectly aware of what "stable" and "unstable" means to portage. 
I _was_ arguing a point based on Alexander's question which I felt was 
ambiguous. Apparently I am the only one who thought it was ambiguous, ha ha, 
stupid me.

The entire rest of that sub-thread was me and Alexander arguing faulty 
premises based on this initial misunderstanding, and it would best be  
ignored by everyone. 

<snip>

> Now, Darren has added a bug for 0.9.3 and a month later, it's still waiting
> to get added to portage.
> His issue is 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 should have been stable by now.

That is an issue, but not one I am losing sleep over, and not one that I am 
arguing in this thread...

If everyone folowing this thread from the sidelines could just read my first 
response to the OP: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/172487

You can see here I explained to the OP that the newer version was not stable, 
but he could access it using "~x86" keyword. I went on to explain that if he 
wanted the latest upstream version he could use an overlay.

Mark my words: I _do not_ think the upstream stable version should, 
automatically or otherwise, be portage's stable version. I never said any 
such thing in any mail to this thread.

<snip>

> I would suggest Darren look through the develoiper list (
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/devrel/roll-call/userinfo.xml) for developers
> handling media-sound. Add them to the cc list on the 0.9.2 ebuild and add a
> comment asking that it be marked stable. And ask for the 0.9.3 to be added
> as ~x86

I will try this. Thank you.

> dcm

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Justin Findlay]

On AD 2006 October 19 Thursday 12:17:17 PM -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> I'm getting tired of quibbling over semantics and misunderstandings here, 
> aren't you Alexander ;)

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

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:

> Quoth the Alexander Skwar
>> Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:
>> > Quoth the Alexander Skwar
>> >
>> >> · maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:
>> >> >>digg2ogg
>> >> >
>> >> > should be dir2ogg
>> >>
>> >> 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
>> >> version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?
>> >
>> > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
>> > (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
>>
>> No, not good enough, as that doesn't matter at all. All that matters is,
>> what's in the tree. And the latest stable version is 0.8, no matter what
>> you think. The question remains: Why should a different version be offered?
>>
>> Alexander Skwar
>> --
>> A closed mouth gathers no foot.
> 
> Sorry Alexander, I just don't get where you're going with this. Version 0.8  
> was released September 27, 2004! There have been 4 major new releases since 
> then, which include many bug fixes, and new and improved features. 0.8 is old 
> and busted, 0.9.3 is the new hotness!

Who cares? All that matters to portage is, what's in the tree.

> Surely I don't need to explain the concept of how software improves with new 
> development? You're not using GCC 2.95 and kernel 2.2.10 are you?

No, because gcc 2.95 isn't the latest stable version in the tree.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
The way I understand it, the Russians are sort of a combination of evil and
incompetence... sort of like the Post Office with tanks.
                -- Emo Philips


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 985 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:53:27 -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:

> > 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
> > version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?  
> 
> Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
> (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough? 

Sort of. Their is a newer version available in portage, but the ebuild has
not been marked stable yet. however, the latest stable is 0.9.2 and I see
you released 0.9.3 in July, so the ebuilds are definitely lagging behind.

When the package has not changed in terms of build process and
dependencies, you can normally make a copy of the ebuild with the new
version number, digest it and then emerge it. As the author and a Gentoo
user, why not make an ebuild available on your web page and post it too
Bugzilla, then the package maintainer may pick it up and put it in portage


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Life Support System Failure - Reboot Patient (Y/n)?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Neil Bothwick
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:53:27 -0700, Darren Kirby wrote:
> > > 0.8 is the latest stable version. Why do you think, that a different
> > > version should be offered, when you "emerge dir2ogg"?
> >
> > Well, I'm the upstream author, and _I_ think there should be different
> > (ie: newer) version offered. Good enough?
>
> Sort of. Their is a newer version available in portage, but the ebuild has
> not been marked stable yet. however, the latest stable is 0.9.2 and I see
> you released 0.9.3 in July, so the ebuilds are definitely lagging behind.
>
> When the package has not changed in terms of build process and
> dependencies, you can normally make a copy of the ebuild with the new
> version number, digest it and then emerge it. As the author and a Gentoo
> user, why not make an ebuild available on your web page and post it too
> Bugzilla, then the package maintainer may pick it up and put it in portage

I did! Back on September 12th: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147360

I don't know if it is overworked devs, lost in the shuffle, or what, but I've 
done all I can. I am not going to harass the devs about it...

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· Darren Kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:
 
> I did! Back on September 12th: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147360

Fine. Portage/emerge doesn't care about this, unless it is made available
to it - eg. through an overlay.

> I don't know if it is overworked devs, lost in the shuffle, or what, but I've 
> done all I can. 

Yep. It's not at all your "fault".

Alexander Skwar
-- 
"All we are given is possibilities -- to make ourselves one thing or another."
-- Ortega y Gasset


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

On Tuesday October 17 2006 23:37, maxim wexler wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I recently sync'ed portage, but when I did #emerge
> digg2ogg it installed version 0.8 which is way out of
> date.
>
> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.
>
> Here's the sync line in make.conf.
>
> SYNC="rsync://rsync.namerica.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
>
> Perhaps I should be adding more? Replace with
> something else?
>
> -Maxim
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 

Brett I. Holcomb
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Brett I. Holcomb]

Are newer versions masked for some reason?  When a sync is done it gets all 
the mirror has.


On Tuesday October 17 2006 23:37, maxim wexler wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> I recently sync'ed portage, but when I did #emerge
> digg2ogg it installed version 0.8 which is way out of
> date.
>
> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.
>
> Here's the sync line in make.conf.
>
> SYNC="rsync://rsync.namerica.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
>
> Perhaps I should be adding more? Replace with
> something else?
>
> -Maxim
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com

-- 

Brett I. Holcomb
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Drew]

> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.

All sync does is download the latest ebuilds into your local portage
tree. If the ebuild maintainers haven't gotten around to creating an
ebuild for package 'foo-1.2.0' (the lastest) and are still using
'foo-0.8' then you're stuck with 'foo-0.8' unless you roll your own
ebuild for 'foo-1.2.0'.

Of course you're also welcome to submit the custom ebuild into
bugzilla to get it included in portage for everyone else to benefit
from.


-Andrew Kay
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the maxim wexler
> Hello group,
>
> I recently sync'ed portage, but when I did #emerge
> digg2ogg it installed version 0.8 which is way out of
> date.
>
> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.
>
> Here's the sync line in make.conf.
>
> SYNC="rsync://rsync.namerica.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage"
>
> Perhaps I should be adding more? Replace with
> something else?
>
> -Maxim

Hi Max,

I put in a bug request for a version bump and to make a newer version stable, 
but it has not been done yet. What you can do for now is:

# echo "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords

and that will install dir2ogg-0.9.1.

Note: that is _still_ a couple versions behind the upstream stable version 
which is 0.9.3. If you need the newer features you may just want to grab the 
package from http://badcomputer.org/unix/dir2ogg and install manually. If you 
want to keep it in portage, you can set up an overlay (read portage guide for 
instructions on this) and simply copy the 0.9.1 ebuild to the overlay, change 
the name to 'dir2ogg-0.9.3.ebuild', digest it, and install as usual...

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[maxim wexler]

> # echo "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86" >>
> /etc/portage/package.keywords
> 
> and that will install dir2ogg-0.9.1.

Not yet. There's gotta be more to it than that.

I ran the above command then did #emerge -C dir2ogg
then #emerge -pv dir2ogg:

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ] media-sound/dir2ogg-0.8  0 kB


>From man make.conf there is this, the only mention of
/etc/portage:

suidctl
    Before merging packages to the live filesystem,
automatically strip setuid bits from any file that is
not listed in /etc/portage/suidctl.conf.

So, if portage is supposed to read package.keywords I
don't know where the link would be made.

-Maxim


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the maxim wexler
> > # echo "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86" >>
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords
> >
> > and that will install dir2ogg-0.9.1.
>
> Not yet. There's gotta be more to it than that.
>
> I ran the above command then did #emerge -C dir2ogg
> then #emerge -pv dir2ogg:
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N    ] media-sound/dir2ogg-0.8  0 kB
>
> >From man make.conf there is this, the only mention of
>
> /etc/portage:
>
> suidctl
>     Before merging packages to the live filesystem,
> automatically strip setuid bits from any file that is
> not listed in /etc/portage/suidctl.conf.
>
> So, if portage is supposed to read package.keywords I
> don't know where the link would be made.

It is built into 'emerge' AFAIK...

You have made a typo or some other mistake. It is documented in the portage 
guide: 
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3#doc_chap2

Again, ensure that you have the line:

media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86

in "/etc/portage/package.keywords"

Note that this assumes you are running "x86" ARCH. If you are using a 
different arch then do the same thing but change the arch to what you are 
using: ie: "~sparc", "~ppc", or "~amd64".

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[maxim wexler]

> You have made a typo or some other mistake. It is
> documented in the portage 
> guide: 

Oops, I left off the 'x' in '~x86'

So that's sorted now. Thanks Darren.

-Maxim

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 October 2006 23:35, Darren Kirby wrote:
> Again, ensure that you have the line:
>
> media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86
>
> in "/etc/portage/package.keywords"
>
> Note that this assumes you are running "x86" ARCH. If you are using a
> different arch then do the same thing but change the arch to what you are
> using: ie: "~sparc", "~ppc", or "~amd64".

Actually it doesn't assume anything. It simply means that you accept any 
package that includes the ~x86 keyword..

-- 
Bo Andresen

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

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Darren Kirby]

Quoth the Bo Ørsted Andresen
> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 23:35, Darren Kirby wrote:
> > Again, ensure that you have the line:
> >
> > media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86
> >
> > in "/etc/portage/package.keywords"
> >
> > Note that this assumes you are running "x86" ARCH. If you are using a
> > different arch then do the same thing but change the arch to what you are
> > using: ie: "~sparc", "~ppc", or "~amd64".
>
> Actually it doesn't assume anything. It simply means that you accept any
> package that includes the ~x86 keyword..

Sheesh. Sorry for the passive tense.

In what I wrote above: "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86", as it pertains to the task 
Max needs to do to get a newer version, I am assuming Max is running an x86 
ARCH...

If you really want to be pedantic it doesn't mean "that you accept any package 
that includes the ~x86 keyword", it means you accept the ~x86 keyworded 
version of dir2ogg...

-d
-- 
darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org
"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."
- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Daniel Barkalow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 979 bytes --]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Darren Kirby wrote:

> Quoth the Bo Ørsted Andresen
> > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 23:35, Darren Kirby wrote:
> >
> > Actually it doesn't assume anything. It simply means that you accept any
> > package that includes the ~x86 keyword..
> 
> Sheesh. Sorry for the passive tense.
> 
> In what I wrote above: "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86", as it pertains to the task 
> Max needs to do to get a newer version, I am assuming Max is running an x86 
> ARCH...

I think he was trying to point out that ~x86 will give you a newer version 
of dir2ogg even if you're running PPC or something else. It's not a good 
idea, because it could give you a known-broken-on-PPC version that's in 
testing for x86 (if there were such a version) or not give you a testing 
version for PPC known to be broken on x86, but portage doesn't 
fundamentally care whether your keywords actually make any sense together.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, maxim wexler wrote:

> I ran the above command then did #emerge -C dir2ogg
> then #emerge -pv dir2ogg:
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N    ] media-sound/dir2ogg-0.8  0 kB

If you try "emerge -pv '>dir2ogg-0.8'", it will tell you why it isn't 
going to install each of the later versions.

> From man make.conf there is this, the only mention of
> /etc/portage:

You want the portage man page; make.conf only documents those things 
actually in make.conf, not the various other config files. Also, the emrge 
man page will tell you relevant things.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Neil Bothwick]

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

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:02:02 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:

> From man make.conf there is this, the only mention of
> /etc/portage:

man portage


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it
considered a hostage situation?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[b.n.]

maxim wexler ha scritto:
>> # echo "media-sound/dir2ogg ~x86" >>
>> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>>
>> and that will install dir2ogg-0.9.1.
> 
> Not yet. There's gotta be more to it than that.
 >
> I ran the above command then did #emerge -C dir2ogg
> then #emerge -pv dir2ogg:
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild  N    ] media-sound/dir2ogg-0.8  0 kB

You probably didn't execute the previous command correctly. If I run 
"eix dir2ogg" that's the output:

* media-sound/dir2ogg
      Available versions:  0.8 ~0.9.1 ~0.9.2
      Installed:           none
      Homepage:            http://badcomputer.org/linux/dir2ogg/
      Description:         Converts MP3, M4A, and WAV files to OGG format.

This means that 0.9.1 and 0.9.2 are masked by ~.
The only really correct way to emerge these packages is to add them to 
package.keywords, as explained in the handbook.

 > So, if portage is supposed to read package.keywords I
 > don't know where the link would be made.

About /etc/portage/package.keywords:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=3&chap=3#doc_chap2

Go here and have a (small) read.
You'll find that probably you're doing something wrong on your side.

m.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Alexander Skwar]

· maxim wexler <blissfix@yahoo.com>:

> Hello group,
> 
> I recently sync'ed portage, but when I did #emerge
> digg2ogg it installed version 0.8 which is way out of
> date. 

There is no digg2ogg in the tree.

> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.

Yes.

> Perhaps I should be adding more? Replace with
> something else?

Well, how about reading docs?

You added an overlay and in this overlay, there's digg2ogg.
You tend to forget quite quickly, what you did, don't you? :)

Alexander Skwar
-- 
How many hardware guys does it take to change a light bulb?

"Well the diagnostics say it's fine buddy, so it's a software problem."


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] how thorough is #emerge --sync?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 389 bytes --]

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:37:04 -0700 (PDT), maxim wexler wrote:

> I thought sync was supposed to "prime" portage to get
> the latest versions of software when needed.

The latest versions AVAILABLE. As has been said so many times, search
bugzilla first - http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=147360


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Conclusion: the place where you got tired of thinking.

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