From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91812138792 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:43:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8ECF5E0A44; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:43:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.cs.nyu.edu (SMTP.CS.NYU.EDU [128.122.49.97]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90D60E09FA for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 15:43:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from newlap.localdomain (ool-182df3df.dyn.optonline.net [24.45.243.223]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.cs.nyu.edu (8.14.3/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA1FhW56027085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:43:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by newlap.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 07681A0144; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 11:43:32 -0400 (EDT) From: gottlieb@nyu.edu To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] did python-r1 improve user experience? References: <5267CB83.3000306@gentoo.org> <526C8B62.9040905@iinet.net.au> <8761scg9ao.fsf@nyu.edu> <87bo249r32.fsf@nyu.edu> <5273B423.9030705@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:43:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5273B423.9030705@gmail.com> (Alan McKinnon's message of "Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:01:07 +0200") Message-ID: <8738ng86vv.fsf@nyu.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) 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 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Archives-Salt: bcc0e415-85ee-4f67-90c3-fa819d5ade4f X-Archives-Hash: ad2eff3f34c3766effed2e2397513174 On Fri, Nov 01 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 01/11/2013 15:41, gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 31 2013, gottlieb@nyu.edu wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Oct 27 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote: >>> >>>> Making things "just work" is complex when trying to juggle 6 or more >>>> supported versions/implementations of python. >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>>> We have tried to explain the magic make.conf lines in the Python user guide. >>>> >>>> https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/Python/python-r1/user-guide.xml >>>> >>>> We also try to make sure that most users never have to touch >>>> PYTHON_TARGETS, etc; the default values provided by your profile are >>>> set up to allow *stable* python2.7 and python3.2 to work properly. >>> >>>> ~arch users are expected to read the docs. ^_^ >>> >>> I am a ~amd64 user and I just read the user-guide. :-) >>> I do not see any action items for my system; but do see a large number >>> of reinstalls proposed by emerge >>> >>> I do not change any python variables in make.conf so emerge --info shows >>> PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7" >>> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2" >>> >>> a recursive grep -i for python in /etc/portage yields only >>> ./package.use/imaging-pillow:5:virtual/python-imaging >>> -python_targets_python3_2 >>> >>> So I basically have the default except for the imaging/pillow business. >>> >>> I note that update world wants to rebuild a bunch of packages (the >>> entire output is below). Some are qt-related others involve >>> PYTHON_TARGETS. >>> >>> Does this mean that I can let the 44 packages / 38 reinstalls update occur >>> and expect a running system to result? It is unusual, but I realize not >>> unprecedented, to have so many reinstalls and I would like to confirm >>> that this is expected. >>> >>> thanks, >>> allan >> >> I realize that I forgot to attach the list of packages emerge wants to >> reinstall. So I did the same emerge command (I always use --ask) and >> they are *gone*. This I don't understand since I didn't sync inbetween >> (ls -lt /usr/portage shows nothing since wednesday). >> >> I though all dependencies, etc are resolved locally so why would it >> change from 44 packages with 38 reinstalls to 4 packages with no >> reinstalls? > > > Did you make any changes to make.conf between your previous mail and > doing this last test? Good question, but no. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 709 Sep 18 14:58 /etc/portage/make.conf allan