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 3D66B13878D for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:42:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDBD6E09B8; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:41:58 +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 DB693E08E8 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 13:41:57 +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 rA1DfsRU025196 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by newlap.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D823EA0144; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:41:53 -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> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 09:41:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8761scg9ao.fsf@nyu.edu> (gottlieb@nyu.edu's message of "Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:11:59 -0400") Message-ID: <87bo249r32.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: e8fbcc61-c4b1-49bf-b7f7-972ae01da588 X-Archives-Hash: 1b07703c570b5e5d7309442508a32295 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? Could someone please set me straight? thanks, allan