[gentoo-user] package.keywords

[gentoo-user] package.keywords

[James]

Well, I just tried something that seems to work,
but has me confused or missing the routine reading
of new portage features.....


Anyway upon a routine update (using portage 2.2_rc33
and sets for kde4) I got a message:


All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-python/sip-4.8.1" have been masked.
One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- dev-python/sip-4.8.1 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) 


So I just added this line to package.keywords:

" >=dev-python/sip-4.8.1  "



and it got passed that problem.....


'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
as an example for emerge....?


Obviously, I'm behind on my routine reading. Is this 
a no-no? Where can I read more about what's going on
with the newest changes to emerge/portage/etc.....?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] package.keywords

[Albert Hopkins]

On Mon, 2009-06-22 at 13:58 +0000, James wrote:
> Well, I just tried something that seems to work,
> but has me confused or missing the routine reading
> of new portage features.....
> 
> 
> Anyway upon a routine update (using portage 2.2_rc33
> and sets for kde4) I got a message:
> 
> 
> All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=dev-python/sip-4.8.1" have been masked.
> One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
> - dev-python/sip-4.8.1 (masked by: ~amd64 keyword) 
> 
> 
> So I just added this line to package.keywords:
> 
> " >=dev-python/sip-4.8.1  "
> 
> 
> 
> and it got passed that problem.....
> 
> 
> 'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
> as an example for emerge....?

This is a package atom... which AFAIK has at least been part of portage
since I've been using Gentoo (6 years).

man 5 portage

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

James <wireless <at> tampabay.rr.com> writes:


> 'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
> as an example for emerge....?


Sorry for my sloppiness.... I should have been more precise
(more coffee required).

It should have read:

'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
within the package.keywords file ?

For package.keywords I do use these symbols:
*  package is visible if it is stable on any architecture
~* package is visible if it is in testing on any architecture
** package is always visible (KEYWORDS are ignored completely)
(and the tilde ~ symbol).
but not <> or =   


Where do I read more and find more of the latest example for
syntax with portage and the different files therein?


???



James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Arttu V.]

On 6/22/09, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Where do I read more and find more of the latest example for
> syntax with portage and the different files therein?
<snip />
> It should have read:
>
> 'man portage' does not show the use of the (><=) syntax
> within the package.keywords file ?

No, but it instructs one to peek into man 5 ebuild for the info. If
you look again at the portage manpage, the section on package.keywords
states of the file format:

"one DEPEND atom per line followed by additional KEYWORDS"

And at the top (Glossary) it says about these atoms:

"DEPEND atom
                     A string which matches a package.  It is of the
form category/package.  It may also contain optional logical operators
and versions.
                     More reading: ebuild(5)"

Follow this "more reading"-hint by entering "man 5 ebuild". The
resulting manpage tells you quite extensively (even everything?) about
the atoms, with many examples, and more.

It takes a meticulous, technically inclined (or otherwise
anal-retentive? :) ) mind to read these manpage-thingies which were
structured and invented before the modern hypertext-intarweb hit the
streets two decades ago. And sure, some of them are written badly, but
IMHO the gentoo ones are pretty ok from a user's POV.

So, as a conclusion, you probably want to use ~ instead of >= in there
as you apparently are running a mostly stable box (arch) instead of
testing (~arch)?

-- 
Arttu V.

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

Arttu V. <arttuv69 <at> gmail.com> writes:


>                      More reading: ebuild(5)"

Ah, ok so there is not restriction on using any of the
the boolean operators in any config file underneath
/etc/portage? as section 5 does not mention any....



> So, as a conclusion, you probably want to use ~ instead of >= in there
> as you apparently are running a mostly stable box (arch) instead of
> testing (~arch)?

This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest
certain boolean operations should not be used,
in say for example, package.keywords?


I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi, 
not by choice......



thanks,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Monday 22 June 2009 17:51:31 James wrote:
>  So, as a conclusion, you probably want to use ~ instead of >= in there
>
> > as you apparently are running a mostly stable box (arch) instead of
> > testing (~arch)?
>
> This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
> there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest
> certain boolean operations should not be used,
> in say for example, package.keywords?

That's more just a safeguard against forgetting you put it there than anything 
else :-)

The vast majority of cases will use only the "=" operator or nothing. That's 
so you unmask the one version you are interested in, not everything from here 
on out, including every buggy, pre-release and just plain broken version that 
happens to have an ebuild.

The use-case for no operator is mostly for the case where you run say a stable 
box, and want the latest of a specific well-known package. You might want the 
latest Qt for example. Another example is -svn ebuilds - enlightenment is a 
case in point. The snapshots are always out of date, latest svn is pretty 
stable, so one must unmask everything to get the -9999 versions

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
> > there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest
> > certain boolean operations should not be used,
> > in say for example, package.keywords?

> That's more just a safeguard against forgetting you put it there than anything 
> else 

Good to know.

> The vast majority of cases will use only the "=" operator or nothing. That's 
> so you unmask the one version you are interested in, not everything from here 
> on out, including every buggy, pre-release and just plain broken version that 
> happens to have an ebuild.

So entries in package.keywords should just have the ~ in front of them?
No point in using other boolean operations in the package.keywords file?




> The use-case for no operator is mostly for the case where you run say a stable 
> box, and want the latest of a specific well-known package. You might want the 
> latest Qt for example. Another example is -svn ebuilds - enlightenment is a 
> case in point. The snapshots are always out of date, latest svn is pretty 
> stable, so one must unmask everything to get the -9999 versions


Ok, now you just tossed my little (pee brain) around quite significantly...
Your saying that not operator will get me the -9999 (SVN) version
of a package?And that this is most likely the most stable because 
the devs/hacks work on it often?


If so then lets put it to the test.
Maybee app-arch/xz-utils ?
so my entry in /etc/portage/package.keywords should look like this:

app-arch/xz-utils
Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask
make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available.


So what did I miss?


James

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/23/2009 05:40 PM, James wrote:
>[...]
> So entries in package.keywords should just have the ~ in front of them?
> No point in using other boolean operations in the package.keywords file?

There's a point to everything.  You need to use whatever suits what you 
want to do.

  ~:  This version and all revision bumps of it.
  =:  This version.
  >:  Higher than this version.
  <:  Lower than this version.
  >=: This and higher versions.
  <=: This and lower versions.

Note that "revision bumps" are not higher versions.  For example:

  ~some-category/foo-3.0.10

will match foo-3.0.10, foo-3.0.10-r1, foo-3.0.10-r2 and all "-rN" 
versions of it, but will *not* match foo-3.0.11 nor 3.0.9.  Just 3.0.10 
and all revisions of it.

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc <at> arcor.de> writes:


> There's a point to everything.  You need to use whatever suits what you 
> want to do.

<snip>

Ok got it.


Now how do I unmask the 9999 version of:

app-arch/xz-utils
     Available versions:  **9999


James

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 06/23/2009 06:28 PM, James wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras<realnc<at>  arcor.de>  writes:
>
>
>> There's a point to everything.  You need to use whatever suits what you
>> want to do.
>
> <snip>
>
> Ok got it.
>
>
> Now how do I unmask the 9999 version of:
>
> app-arch/xz-utils
>       Available versions:  **9999

By putting:

   app-arch/xz-utils **

in package.keywords.  I used that because 9999 is the only version 
available.  If you wish narrow it down nonetheless, use:

   ~app-arch/xz-utils-9999 **

[gentoo-user] ReSOLVED: package.keywords

[James]

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc <at> arcor.de> writes:


>    app-arch/xz-utils **

> in package.keywords.  I used that because 9999 is the only version 
> available.  If you wish narrow it down nonetheless, use:
 
>    ~app-arch/xz-utils-9999 **

Both work!

got it now. Sorry but reading the man pages on portage and ebuild
did not clear this up, nor show a clear, precise example
as you have provided.

Should I file a bug under documentation? Or is this just 
my weakness in comprehension?

It's also nice to have clarity on the boolean operations, with 
details and examples provided.

thx,

James

Re: [gentoo-user] ReSOLVED: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 18:09:39 James wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc <at> arcor.de> writes:
> >    app-arch/xz-utils **
> >
> > in package.keywords.  I used that because 9999 is the only version
> > available.  If you wish narrow it down nonetheless, use:
> >
> >    ~app-arch/xz-utils-9999 **
>
> Both work!
>
> got it now. Sorry but reading the man pages on portage and ebuild
> did not clear this up, nor show a clear, precise example
> as you have provided.
>
> Should I file a bug under documentation? Or is this just
> my weakness in comprehension?

Neither. A full understanding of portage and it's man pages is a recursive 
process.

There is just no way you are going to get it all in your head the first time 
round. Re-read them again and again, each time more sensible information 
filters down into your awareness.

A process much like reading programming language documentation actually...


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 452 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

> app-arch/xz-utils
> Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask
> make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available.

This ebuild doesn't have a valid KEYWORDS line, try something less broken.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Head: (n.) the part of a disk drive which detects sectors and decides
which of the two possible values to return: 'lose a turn' or 'bankrupt.'

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

Neil Bothwick <neil <at> digimed.co.uk> writes:


> > make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available.

> This ebuild doesn't have a valid KEYWORDS line, try something less broken.


OK, I tried is because there does not seem to be other dependancies.

Pick an example for me, cause nothing I ever do get me
a -9999 package variant for install on a stable system.

I understand what every one is has written, I just need
one example, not an exception like enlightenment....


OK?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:40:51 James wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > > This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
> > > there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest
> > > certain boolean operations should not be used,
> > > in say for example, package.keywords?
> >
> > That's more just a safeguard against forgetting you put it there than
> > anything else
>
> Good to know.
>
> > The vast majority of cases will use only the "=" operator or nothing.
> > That's so you unmask the one version you are interested in, not
> > everything from here on out, including every buggy, pre-release and just
> > plain broken version that happens to have an ebuild.
>
> So entries in package.keywords should just have the ~ in front of them?
> No point in using other boolean operations in the package.keywords file?

I personally have never used other operators. But Murphy says that as soon as 
I say there's no need for them, someone will come along and prove me wrong :-)

It's not a bad thing to have all operators be valid syntax, then you (the 
admin) can choose what you actually need

> > The use-case for no operator is mostly for the case where you run say a
> > stable box, and want the latest of a specific well-known package. You
> > might want the latest Qt for example. Another example is -svn ebuilds -
> > enlightenment is a case in point. The snapshots are always out of date,
> > latest svn is pretty stable, so one must unmask everything to get the
> > -9999 versions
>
> Ok, now you just tossed my little (pee brain) around quite significantly...
> Your saying that not operator will get me the -9999 (SVN) version
> of a package?And that this is most likely the most stable because
> the devs/hacks work on it often?

I cheat and just do this:

x11-wm/enlightenment * ~* **

But enlightenment is a special case. e17 has never had a release (snapshots 
that are known to build are not considered releases) and the majority of users 
simply check out and build the latest commits in svn. The way the ebuilds are 
versioned, enlightenment-9999 gets you the latest in svn.

That's a pretty normal gentoo convention

>
> If so then lets put it to the test.
> Maybee app-arch/xz-utils ?
> so my entry in /etc/portage/package.keywords should look like this:
>
> app-arch/xz-utils
> Nothing I tried in either package.keywords or package.unmask
> make the app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (SVN) version available.
>
>
> So what did I miss?

You need to put a mask after the package name - *, ~* or **. The default is to 
use your current ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.

* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on your arch
~* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on any arch
** removes masking keywords for the package unconditionally

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[James]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:


> I cheat and just do this:

> x11-wm/enlightenment * ~* **
Does not work for xz-utils. Neil's post may be the reason,
but there is definately nothing I've read (in man pages)
to distinguish these anomalous cases....?


> But enlightenment is a special case. e17 has never had a release (snapshots 
> that are known to build are not considered releases) and the majority of users 
> simply check out and build the latest commits in svn. The way the ebuilds are 
> versioned, enlightenment-9999 gets you the latest in svn.

> That's a pretty normal gentoo convention


> You need to put a mask after the package name - *, ~* or **. The default is to 
> use your current ACCEPT_KEYWORDS.


> * removes masking keywords if the package is stable on your arch
> ~* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on any arch
> ** removes masking keywords for the package unconditionally


none of these worked for the 
xz-utils package. Can we find a simple example that does work?
(not enlightenment).....?


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 17:49:40 James wrote:
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon <at> gmail.com> writes:

> > * removes masking keywords if the package is stable on your arch
> > ~* removes masking keywords if the package is stable on any arch
> > ** removes masking keywords for the package unconditionally
>
> none of these worked for the
> xz-utils package. Can we find a simple example that does work?
> (not enlightenment).....?

You want "app-arch/xz-utils **" in package.keywords. It is blocked by lzma, 
but that entry does at least get the emerge past the mask stage:

nazgul xz-utils # echo "app-arch/xz-utils ~*" > 
/etc/portage/package.keywords/temp
nazgul xz-utils # emerge -av1 xz-utils

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

Calculating dependencies... done!

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "app-arch/xz-utils" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- app-arch/xz-utils-9999 (masked by: missing keyword)

For more information, see the MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge
man page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.

nazgul xz-utils # echo "app-arch/xz-utils **" > 
/etc/portage/package.keywords/temp
nazgul xz-utils # emerge -av1 xz-utils

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

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N    ] app-arch/xz-utils-9999  0 kB
[blocks B     ] app-arch/lzma-utils ("app-arch/lzma-utils" is blocking app-
arch/xz-utils-9999)

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 695 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:

> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi, 
> not by choice......

It's easier to manage if you make portage.keywords a directory then put
the actual packages in files within that directory. That way you can
separate the files needed to run KDE4 from any other group of packages.

All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories, then
all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Therapy is expensive, popping bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
>> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
>> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi, 
>> not by choice......
>>     
>
> It's easier to manage if you make portage.keywords a directory then put
> the actual packages in files within that directory. That way you can
> separate the files needed to run KDE4 from any other group of packages.
>
> All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories, then
> all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.
>
>
>   

For some reason, my light bulb has still not came on so here comes some
questions.  I would create /etc/portage/package.keywords then inside
that another directory or a set of files?  Say, one named KDE4 to put
all of KDE4 and it's little friends and then another for some other set
of packages?  Is this sort of like the sets thing which I am still
curious about?

Right now, package.keywords and friends are files not directories. 
Maybe tarring up your portage directory and emailing me off list would
help?  I need a light bulb moment here.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1265 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:17:16 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories,
> > then all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.

> For some reason, my light bulb has still not came on so here comes some
> questions.  I would create /etc/portage/package.keywords then inside
> that another directory or a set of files?

A set of files.

>  Say, one named KDE4 to put
> all of KDE4 and it's little friends and then another for some other set
> of packages?

Exactly. The portage man page explains it well.

/etc/portage/
   Any file in this directory that begins with "package." can be more than
   just a flat file. If it is a directory, then all the files in that
   directory will be sorted in ascending alphabetical order by file name
   and summed together as if it were a single file. 

   Example: 
   /etc/portage/package.keywords/common
   /etc/portage/package.keywords/e17
   /etc/portage/package.keywords/kde

> Is this sort of like the sets thing which I am still
> curious about?

Not really, it's just an alternative way of organising the package.* data.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Asking whether machines can think is like asking whether submarines can
swim.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:17:16 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:
> >> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
> >> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
> >> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi,
> >> not by choice......
> >
> > It's easier to manage if you make portage.keywords a directory then put
> > the actual packages in files within that directory. That way you can
> > separate the files needed to run KDE4 from any other group of packages.
> >
> > All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories, then
> > all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.
>
> For some reason, my light bulb has still not came on so here comes some
> questions.  I would create /etc/portage/package.keywords then inside
> that another directory or a set of files?  Say, one named KDE4 to put
> all of KDE4 and it's little friends and then another for some other set
> of packages?  Is this sort of like the sets thing which I am still
> curious about?

Yes, precisely. 

If package.keywords is a single file, then all your keywords must be in that 
file. This is difficult for ebuilds to manipulate, and difficult for you to 
edit too. If I send you my list of KDE keywords, you have to copy paste the 
lot into a file and put comments at the start and end so you know what it all 
is.

If package.keywords is a directory, then portage/ebuilds/tools/you can add and 
remove entire files easily, leaving everything else untouched.

> Right now, package.keywords and friends are files not directories.
> Maybe tarring up your portage directory and emailing me off list would
> help?  I need a light bulb moment here.  :/

It's easy. As root:

cd /etc/portage
mv package.keywords package.keywords~
mkdir package.keywords
mv package.keywords~ package.keywords/package.keywords

The destination file in the last command can be named anything you like. 

Now, if you install enlightenment, create and edit 
/etc/portage/package.keywords/e17
If I send you my KDE keywords as an attachment, right-click, Save As, 
/etc/portage/package.keywords/kde4

Done, sorted.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009 01:17:16 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:51:31 +0000 (UTC), James wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
>>>> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
>>>> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi,
>>>> not by choice......
>>>>         
>>> It's easier to manage if you make portage.keywords a directory then put
>>> the actual packages in files within that directory. That way you can
>>> separate the files needed to run KDE4 from any other group of packages.
>>>
>>> All package.* files in /etc/portage can be replaced a directories, then
>>> all the files in that directory are considered as a whole.
>>>       
>> For some reason, my light bulb has still not came on so here comes some
>> questions.  I would create /etc/portage/package.keywords then inside
>> that another directory or a set of files?  Say, one named KDE4 to put
>> all of KDE4 and it's little friends and then another for some other set
>> of packages?  Is this sort of like the sets thing which I am still
>> curious about?
>>     
>
> Yes, precisely. 
>
> If package.keywords is a single file, then all your keywords must be in that 
> file. This is difficult for ebuilds to manipulate, and difficult for you to 
> edit too. If I send you my list of KDE keywords, you have to copy paste the 
> lot into a file and put comments at the start and end so you know what it all 
> is.
>
> If package.keywords is a directory, then portage/ebuilds/tools/you can add and 
> remove entire files easily, leaving everything else untouched.
>
>   
>> Right now, package.keywords and friends are files not directories.
>> Maybe tarring up your portage directory and emailing me off list would
>> help?  I need a light bulb moment here.  :/
>>     
>
> It's easy. As root:
>
> cd /etc/portage
> mv package.keywords package.keywords~
> mkdir package.keywords
> mv package.keywords~ package.keywords/package.keywords
>
> The destination file in the last command can be named anything you like. 
>
> Now, if you install enlightenment, create and edit 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/e17
> If I send you my KDE keywords as an attachment, right-click, Save As, 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/kde4
>
> Done, sorted.
>
>   

This sounds cool.  I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
KDE 4 comes to mind for this.  That requires a lot of work.  I'm going
to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.

Thanks much.  Light bulb is glowing a bit now.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 468 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:

> This sounds cool.  I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
> KDE 4 comes to mind for this.  That requires a lot of work.  I'm going
> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.

It does, it creates a file called autounmask-something, so it is obvious
where it came from and what it unmasks.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Good fortune will find you provided you left clear instructions.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>   
>> This sounds cool.  I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
>> KDE 4 comes to mind for this.  That requires a lot of work.  I'm going
>> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.
>>     
>
> It does, it creates a file called autounmask-something, so it is obvious
> where it came from and what it unmasks.
>
>
>   

It's been a while since I used it but I thought I saw a update being
done a while back. 

May try KDE 4 again soon.  The biggest thing I hate about KDE 4 is the
login screen.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tuesday 23 June 2009 09:38:32 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
> >> This sounds cool.  I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
> >> KDE 4 comes to mind for this.  That requires a lot of work.  I'm going
> >> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.
> >
> > It does, it creates a file called autounmask-something, so it is obvious
> > where it came from and what it unmasks.
>
> It's been a while since I used it but I thought I saw a update being
> done a while back.
>
> May try KDE 4 again soon.  The biggest thing I hate about KDE 4 is the
> login screen.

Well that's easy, just don't use kdm :-)

If you want pretty, there's entrance
If you want light, there's slim
If you want hard-core, there's xdm

There's also gdm. But I don't talk about gdm. It's personal, and painful. 
Don't ask :-)

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Weitao Sun]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> There's also gdm. But I don't talk about gdm. It's personal, and painful. 
> Don't ask :-)
>   
Well, tell us why you don't like gdm. :-)

;-p



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4180 (20090623) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 June 2009 09:38:32 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>     
>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:45 -0500, Dale wrote:
>>>       
>>>> This sounds cool.  I don't unmask a lot or anything but something like
>>>> KDE 4 comes to mind for this.  That requires a lot of work.  I'm going
>>>> to have to check to see if autounmask supports this too.
>>>>         
>>> It does, it creates a file called autounmask-something, so it is obvious
>>> where it came from and what it unmasks.
>>>       
>> It's been a while since I used it but I thought I saw a update being
>> done a while back.
>>
>> May try KDE 4 again soon.  The biggest thing I hate about KDE 4 is the
>> login screen.
>>     
>
> Well that's easy, just don't use kdm :-)
>
> If you want pretty, there's entrance
> If you want light, there's slim
> If you want hard-core, there's xdm
>
> There's also gdm. But I don't talk about gdm. It's personal, and painful. 
> Don't ask :-)
>
>   

Well, what I don't like is the clock with no seconds.  I have a changing
background and I sort of like it to change on the 00's.  I know exactly
how long it takes for me to type in my password, hit return and it start
the desktop.  It's 11 seconds here.  So, if I hit return right on 49
seconds, the background changes on the 00's every time. 

The new KDE login doesn't have a second hand so I have no idea when to
hit the return key to login.  I hate to say this, I may stick with KDE 3
until that is changed.  There has to be a setting somewhere but this
little idiot can't find it.

I have never seen gdm so I'll take your word for it.  I hate that little
startx thing.  That is ugly.  O-o

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:27:37 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Well that's easy, just don't use kdm :-)
> 
> If you want pretty, there's entrance
> If you want light, there's slim
> If you want hard-core, there's xdm

If you want lazy, use kdm with auto-login.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

.sig? we don't need no stinkin' .sig!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: package.keywords

[Arttu V.]

On 6/22/09, James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Arttu V. <arttuv69 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>                      More reading: ebuild(5)"
>
> Ah, ok so there is not restriction on using any of the
> the boolean operators in any config file underneath
> /etc/portage? as section 5 does not mention any....

Well, for those files that are actually supposed to contain DEPEND
atoms that is probably true. I haven't checked the whole man page and
all files it lists to see if it places any restrictions on some
specific files therein, so I'm a bit timid to claim full "no limits"
either. But for package.keywords it didn't mention any limits and I'd
believe the others don't have them either. :)

Still, the best identifier of the allowed syntax is probably portage
itself. Make a typo in files under /etc/portage and portage will tell
you next time you emerge -pv something or emerge -av something.

And it also breaks in a quite predictable fashion when it reads your
typos in those files: it will just drop the lines it doesn't
understand (while also printing warning messages) and then dutifully
proceed to next line. So if ever in doubt, you can try it and see what
portage's parser thinks about your "fuzz-test". :)

> This is my (mis)conception, although, as you have suggest,
> there are (gentoo) cultural norms that do suggest
> certain boolean operations should not be used,
> in say for example, package.keywords?

Not sure if by cultural norms you're referring to something I'd rather
label as "best practices"? :)

But then again, there are best practices for bleeding edge folks and
best practices for "stability is paramount" folks and they may
overlap, but most likely they aren't quite the same.

> I'm mostly running stable with exceptions being enabled
> via the /etc/portage file structure. Usually it's small,
> but now with kde4, BLOAT is my modus operandi,
> not by choice......

Then, again, you probably don't want the >= as it will unmask the
latest testing version currently available, plus in future any new
testing grade versions as they get added to portage tree. What you
want is either = or ~. (And do note that ~ at the front of a DEPEND
atom means a different thing from the testing keyword in ~arch).

But it is all up to you to decide, you're the commander'n'chief of
your own boxen.

-- 
Arttu V.