From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39110138359 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 07:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3564E09AB; Thu, 7 May 2020 07:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw.thundermail.uk (mail-gw.thundermail.uk [149.255.60.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B5FEE0985 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 07:49:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailgw01.thundermail.uk (mail-gw.thundermail.uk [149.255.60.66]) by mail-gw.thundermail.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 594EC6032FFA for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 08:49:40 +0100 (BST) X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1588837779-05541315a62ba1c0001-LfjuLa Received: from cloud307.thundercloud.uk (cloud307.thundercloud.uk [149.255.58.40]) by mailgw01.thundermail.uk with ESMTP id UNNAl2MQ1VNxY2n5 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 07 May 2020 08:49:39 +0100 (BST) X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: confabulate@kintzios.com X-Barracuda-Effective-Source-IP: cloud307.thundercloud.uk[149.255.58.40] X-Barracuda-Apparent-Source-IP: 149.255.58.40 Received: from lenovo.localdomain (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by cloud307.thundercloud.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C1E5C47223 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 08:49:39 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kintzios.com; s=default; t=1588837779; bh=x0v0b1lu+zO2BoQJVZ+z02Tw23Lmg32K/G8CSCxZdG4=; h=From:To:Subject; b=bWhMUmDxxQ+g4Tdmw9InIx88f9cJOA7Tx3VXJwbxnf6vurcCTUO+g+bt9saVgm0iM EBmaGzH5jW7NcVUOUvNdWX15YtDherjyg3WqExG1KYXsa8HdEqh1exydMsb9Am7f74 CeJW6qEV2m7chQ1Jl+Z6kDEpN+2jt9PcoHYB4P1M= Authentication-Results: cloud307.thundercloud.uk; spf=pass (sender IP is 217.169.3.230) smtp.mailfrom=confabulate@kintzios.com smtp.helo=lenovo.localdomain Received-SPF: pass (cloud307.thundercloud.uk: connection is authenticated) From: Michael To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead? Date: Thu, 07 May 2020 08:49:24 +0100 X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead? Message-ID: <7755139.T7Z3S40VBb@lenovo.localdomain> In-Reply-To: References: <20200421165803.GB187193@redacted> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart9692746.nUPlyArG6x"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-PPP-Message-ID: <20200507074939.111039.96394@cloud307.thundercloud.uk> X-PPP-Vhost: kintzios.com X-Barracuda-Connect: cloud307.thundercloud.uk[149.255.58.40] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1588837779 X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 X-Barracuda-URL: https://149.255.60.66:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at thundermail.uk X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 3261 X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1 X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=1.9 tests=MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.81684 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR Includes a link to a likely spammer email X-Archives-Salt: 64832e4b-439c-4777-b3a3-2dc816f80f73 X-Archives-Hash: b72ef5911d9722cb8d8376be9df38847 --nextPart9692746.nUPlyArG6x Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Thursday, 7 May 2020 04:50:41 BST Caveman Al Toraboran wrote: > On Thursday, May 7, 2020 7:31 AM, Dale wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > OP, odds are the emerge failure is what triggered the problem. If it had > > completed without failure, it would likely have been a clean update. This > > is why I set up a chroot and do my updates there and use the -k option to > > install on my actual system. It takes very little time and so far, no > > breakages on my real system. If any thing fails, it's more likely to be > > in the chroot which won't hurt anything. If you able, may be a option > > worth thinking about for yourself as well. > > > > Dale > > > > :-) :-) > > ya. i said it already. emerge's update failed > with some package midways (some package needed > some USE flag change), but then layman stopped > working in this incomplete state. > > also the issue was simple. but i pointed out that > the inconvenience of having a fancy dependency on > a pms is still there. Our portage sync cycles are different. I updated some python packages during yesterday's resync on a stable system. Today there was no packages needing update, but portage was unable to resolve layman: ====================================================== These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies \ !!! Problem resolving dependencies for app-portage/layman from @selected ... done! !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "app-portage/layman" has unmet requirements. - app-portage/layman-2.4.2-r1::gentoo USE="git -cvs (-darcs) (-g-sorcery) -gpg -mercurial -sqlite -squashfs -subversion -sync-plugin-portage -test" PYTHON_TARGETS="-python3_6" The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied: python_targets_python3_6 The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression: any-of ( python_targets_python3_6 ) ======================================= Python3.6 is still installed so layman works as intended and in the near future when >=layman-2.4.3 is stabilised in the tree, a regular update will resolve the above issue. Since neither layman nor portage are functionally borked, I don't perceive the above as a problem. Nevertheless, I followed the original thread with interest. Technology and programming languages evolve apace, so I understand a PMS running on python for decades may be deemed suboptimal today, if other more suitable solutions are now available. Unless someone skilled in those hypothetically better technologies rocks up and contributes, something I think most would welcome, I don't see the portage 'solution' moving away from python soon. I understand Paludis was such an endeavour, but its attempt to dethrone python didn't survive the test of time - or was it internal politics? I am less exercised regarding the static Vs dynamic libraries argument, which I also followed in the thread. I don't recall portage breaking here in what must have been hundreds of upgrades on mostly stable systems, for more than 17 years. What I'm saying is, it has worked for me and I thank the devs and maintainers for a job well done. :-) --nextPart9692746.nUPlyArG6x Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEXqhvaVh2ERicA8Ceseqq9sKVZxkFAl6zvYQACgkQseqq9sKV Zxmk9A/+JnwS5xOa1Tj51CzkIuJAZzXqACmfFfYM5uKivs8YlC/CG0LX2ZVZbtz4 BmncDoegPoafqnLp7NQYhUfoLwTFbRVgNmn6PwyQMZE+U5WlB25zetotXKjBSNHF bRIJULShKviwO0EGOJEMgafORMSZUF2AM0nL0/H7bLYpOdYFwgL17JyDzH9k6pC9 yrAgmg6zy4DpToSEU3egdMStwuNSnIIQLdmUvkH1MVZV23bZARZxEn71ZQjG+3I5 +oyWcHsYVh1mPM/0RzSVOwm1OzilN8peX+QGPR20czwG4LA6MHcPS+zIYBd7D6uk KT+rnQvBenQDISOr+FkHGBNmKscnsKrOMUOY4Vof9yqwyaG5gOxAwodesp8QouGm oxVSknPvwjP8apCS4HyWGlKkxWf5o3VtElI05LkJ1lkcw4pI2pSBsw8JQTytucUz pbYed2kHorleUczfVQMZ+Ifns/B4k3VQCYBeIxFFec7n+hVfHSsX9a2qcRG0cK9T 2nPQxvI/rX/fxaIpMT6gAowF8BP4QrJTsD/EpC59wdWizbFvfCRVSwi0D1+qflVB EGrwZfIlmnpcFfURyabU6E3IHCycN6JEMKCqF0fpfWeE05tCxwmYTFjuyFqIYqw3 7vi2COVvoy6pY6xlaQaaVavHxzPttssC48CdckNqsI0ZlSDoKk0= =W7u9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart9692746.nUPlyArG6x--