Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Wyatt Epp]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Neil Bothwick  wrote:

> On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:28:35 -0400, Wyatt Epp wrote:
>
> > You know, I wonder if that's not a bug?  There is no eselect module for
> > setting your python version,
>
> U
>
> % eselect python help
> Manage the /usr/bin/python and python.1 man symlinks.
> Usage: eselect python  

Whoops, guess I just didn't have it installed.  My bad, then.

Regards,
Wyatt

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:28:35 -0400, Wyatt Epp wrote:

> You know, I wonder if that's not a bug?  There is no eselect module for
> setting your python version,

U

% eselect python help
Manage the /usr/bin/python and python.1 man symlinks.
Usage: eselect python  

Standard actions:
  help  Display help text
  usage Display usage information
  version   Display version information

Extra actions:
  list  List installed python interpreters
  set   Set active python interpreter.
  show  Show the active python interpreter
  updateSwitch to the most recent CPython.
--if-unsetDo not override existing implementation
--ignore SLOT Ignore SLOT when setting symlinks

> and there's no entry for that symlink in
> the CONTENTS for these packages.

If the symlink is created by eselect, even if eselect is called from the
ebuild's post_install function, it cannot be in CONTENTS because it
wasn't there when that list was created.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Did you know that eskimos have 17 different words for linguist ?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 16:28:35 -0400
Wyatt Epp  wrote:

> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jorge Morais  > wrote:
> 
> > I should mention that you should be careful about deleting any files -
> > and qfile is not a 100% guarantee that the file does not come from a
> > Portage-installed package. For example, in my system Python was
> > installed by Portage, and
> > $ file /usr/bin/python
> > /usr/bin/python: symbolic link to `python2.5'
> > , yet
> > $ qfile /usr/bin/python
> > 
> 
> 
> You know, I wonder if that's not a bug?  There is no eselect module for
> setting your python version, and there's no entry for that symlink in the
> CONTENTS for these packages.  If I understand the role of that file, that
> symlink really shouldn't exist without being listed there.

I don't know enough about Portage to comment, but undoubtedly I
(as a user) would like these files to be registered by Portage.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Wyatt Epp]

On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jorge Morais  wrote:

> I should mention that you should be careful about deleting any files -
> and qfile is not a 100% guarantee that the file does not come from a
> Portage-installed package. For example, in my system Python was
> installed by Portage, and
> $ file /usr/bin/python
> /usr/bin/python: symbolic link to `python2.5'
> , yet
> $ qfile /usr/bin/python
> 


You know, I wonder if that's not a bug?  There is no eselect module for
setting your python version, and there's no entry for that symlink in the
CONTENTS for these packages.  If I understand the role of that file, that
symlink really shouldn't exist without being listed there.

Cheers,
Wyatt

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Stroller]

On 27 May 2009, at 09:32, Jon Hardcastle wrote:

...
As the guy that started this thread I am testimony to this problem.  
I now have a tainted (albeit only slightly) system as my main server  
at home!


This whole problem came about because I wanted to install truecrypt  
(another powder keg!) needed a new version of udev that needed x, y  
and z.

...

I'm interested to know how you resolved the whole thing, and if your  
machine is up & running again now.


I'm particularly interested to know how your system is "tainted".

There was some suggestion, I think, earlier in the thread that you'd  
ended up installing Python manually, and that it might have left files  
all over your system that might in future misbehave with your Portage- 
installed (once you get it fixed) Python. I was about to suggest that  
there are tools in the tree that should enable you to find files on  
your system that don't belong to any ebuild - I see that Jorge has  
(whilst I've been typing this) questioned the ability of qfile to do  
this accurately, but there is perhaps some other tool.


I would also add that I'd reckon you've got a pretty sound system if  
you can `emerge -e world` successfully - if you've got portage working  
again, then don't worry too much about about what *might* have  
"tainted" things. Just enjoy.


Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:08:50 -0300
Jorge Morais  wrote:

> One idea: you can can recompile python with a safe
> prefix (such as a subdir of your home), issue make install (not as root,
> for increased safety) and see where Python install its files relative to
> the prefix, so you can delete them from your system
> (to be more careful before deleting a file, you can issue
> qfile  to see if it is owned by a portage-installed package.
> And in the end you can emerge python properly, from the sources, so all
> the ebuild logic (which is more than just ./configure, make and make install)
> gets applied, and you get a Python installation that respects your USE flags,
> CFLAGS and other system-specific settings (obviously you don't get such a
> system-customized python when you use the binary package from tinderbox).
> 

I should mention that you should be careful about deleting any files -
and qfile is not a 100% guarantee that the file does not come from a
Portage-installed package. For example, in my system Python was
installed by Portage, and
$ file /usr/bin/python
/usr/bin/python: symbolic link to `python2.5'
, yet
$ qfile /usr/bin/python


So qfile giving an empty output is not a guarantee that the file is
indeed orphan. Specially with symlinks - look at the Python ebuild
and see the way these symlinks are generated.

And of course, it is wise to emerge --buildpkg python before doing any
cleaning.
And after the cleaning, reemerge Python.

Regards,
Jorge

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 01:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Jon Hardcastle  wrote:

> 
> I'd hope that if anyone else comes a cropper by this then at least this conv 
> will help them! But I was EXPECTING portage to not let me do something that 
> would stop the 'solution' (and that is what it is whether at the portage or 
> the gentoo level) working.

I hope you solve everything. Anyway there is something you should have
learned: think before acting, and do not rely on safeguards. They were
meant to diminish the damage if you get into problems, not to be counted
on as if they were normal functionality.

In terms of computer usage, do never perform a task without reading
documentation and understanding what you are doing.

You should have realized that Python is a core component of the system
and that one needs great care when messing with core components.
And specifically, it is *not* safe to remove a component "just for a
small time" (this is not the first time I've seen this). For a normal
component you have to, at least, ensure the component is not currently
in use and will not be needed during the period it will be absent.
For a core component you should be far more careful. And normally
you don't have to mess with it at all.

And after your first mistake you continued to make others.
The instructions in that blog were not quite good. After a little
time searching the forums I found the tinderbox solution - which
is far simpler and cleaner. Also, the person recommending the solution
has some credibility (being a site administrator for the Gentoo forums)
and, the solution being simpler, it is easier for you to *understand* them
and act with confidence (and I personally would take at the very lest
one extra care - verify if the USE flags and CFLAGS the binary package
was built with were compatible with my system).
You appear to have executed commands you didn't understand - based on
some blog.

Anyway, how is the system now? Is portage working? What about the
manual Python installations, are they still in the system?
I don't know if it is healthy to have these remains around
(and if you want to clean them, be careful).

By the way, can you write with more clarity? I don't understand you
completely - perhaps because I am a non-native English speaker.

Regards,
Jorge

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Wed, 27 May 2009 01:32:13 -0700 (PDT), Jon Hardcastle wrote:

> But I was EXPECTING portage to not let me do something that would stop
> the 'solution' (and that is what it is whether at the portage or the
> gentoo level) working.

Gentoo provides the gun, it does not prevent you pointing at your foot.
Hand holding is for other distros, although the lack of the serious
warning that you used to get when trying to unmerge python (and still do
for gcc, glibc, etc) is a definite backwards step.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

...context...


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jon Hardcastle]

--- On Mon, 25/5/09, Stroller  wrote:

> From: Stroller 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Date: Monday, 25 May, 2009, 12:34 AM
> 
> On 24 May 2009, at 21:41, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
> > 
> >>> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it
> always did, but @system
> >>> has changed. This cold have happened at any
> time as there was never a
> >>> need for python to be in @system,because it's
> a dependency of
> >>> portage.
> >> 
> >> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly
> is not the way it
> >> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is:
> >> 
> >> if (pkgmgr=portage)
> >>     python in @system
> >> else
> >>     python !in system
> >> end
> > 
> > That's not particularly sane, because it addresses
> only one special case,
> > others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said
> some posts
> > ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for
> everything in @system and
> > their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK
> @system", buildsyspkg
> > has failed to do anything useful.
> 
> +1
> 
> You have saved me replying to Alan's post.
> 
> One could write a package manager in Perl. As it stands
> Portage would warn you against uninstalling "Perltage", but
> not Perl itself, a hard dependency of that package manager.
> Clearly this should be fixed.
> 
> Stroller.
> 
> 

+ 1

As the guy that started this thread I am testimony to this problem. I now have 
a tainted (albeit only slightly) system as my main server at home!

This whole problem came about because I wanted to install truecrypt (another 
powder keg!) needed a new version of udev that needed x, y and z. I then 
decided it had been all together too long since I did an update world - as i 
was afraid of borking either udev, lvm, md, mdadm which i rely on. NONE OF 
WHICH CAUSED A SINGLE PROBLEM. python-updater however was causing a blockage so 
I uninstalled python hoping to reinstall a clean version and BANG. Several 
emails later and a few days - here we are.

I'd hope that if anyone else comes a cropper by this then at least this conv 
will help them! But I was EXPECTING portage to not let me do something that 
would stop the 'solution' (and that is what it is whether at the portage or the 
gentoo level) working.

---
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: j...@ehardcastle.com
'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'

Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
---

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Stroller]

On 24 May 2009, at 21:41, Neil Bothwick wrote:


On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:


Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system
has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was  
never a

need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of
portage.


That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it
SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is:

if (pkgmgr=portage)
python in @system
else
python !in system
end


That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special  
case,

others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts
ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system  
and

their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg
has failed to do anything useful.


+1

You have saved me replying to Alan's post.

One could write a package manager in Perl. As it stands Portage would  
warn you against uninstalling "Perltage", but not Perl itself, a hard  
dependency of that package manager. Clearly this should be fixed.


Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Arttu V.]

On 5/24/09, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
> Dale asked *where* system is defined, not what it consists of.

Well, he was asking many things. One can run into several directions
with all the questions he asked, depending on the assumptions one
makes. ;)

> It appears you are completely missing the point. It is indeed very easy to
> add things to the @system set, but we are talking about the system set,
> and it is broken out of the box as shipped.

I'm just focusing on it on a level where we (the users, me, you, Mr.
Dalek, or the OP) can do things about it, where we have immediate
write access. That rules out the Gentoo repos and leaves the local
boxes.

We also can and should escalate it to those who can do more, and IIRC
some kind person (you? missed it and forgot who it was) already
offered to file the bug. Short of becoming a dev, what more can be
done in a volunteer-based distro?

> Portage will not let you unmerge portage or gcc without a fight.

Been there, done exactly that (with gcc), though no t-shirts were
awarded. A 10-second countdown (IIRC) is hardly a "fight". (But the
reinstall sure was, won't do it ever again if I simply can avoid it!)
:)

> But it's not working that way today. Ergo, it is broken.

I think that is what we agree on, it warrants an escalation (a bug or
a feature request). It is the immediate things vs. higher level
reporting that we seem to be slightly mixed up about.

I already asked quickly about this on #gentoo on Saturday and the
resident devs there hadn't heard about this, but didn't really appear
that worried either. I won't blame them. This won't destroy your data,
this will only make certain breakage cases a bit more complicated, and
if you really need the four or five nines uptimes, you can try
mitigating the problem by, e.g., going full scale buildpkg for
everything.

Furthermore, the glep-55 discussion seems to be heating up again on
the -dev-list, so I wouldn't expect the devs to be quick to fix
anything related to the PMS/multiple package manager issues right now.
They're too busy flinging all shades of poo. Summer, they should have
lectures and exams during summer at Universities, too. :/

-- 
Arttu V.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>   
>>> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system
>>> has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a
>>> need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of
>>> portage.  
>>>   
>> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it
>> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is:
>>
>> if (pkgmgr=portage)
>>  python in @system
>> else
>>  python !in system
>> end
>> 
>
> That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special case,
> others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts
> ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system and
> their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg
> has failed to do anything useful.
>
>
>   

That's what I am trying to say.  Thanks.  Being someone who only speaks
English, I ain't very good at it.  LOL  It's the dependencies that is
not working here.  Portage has to have python to work so leaving that
out is a bad idea.  Ask the OP about that.

Now can someone explain this problem to the devs so they can fix this?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 20:54:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> Portage will not let you unmerge portage or gcc without a fight. It
> offers a way to back up these critical packages. No rational person
> will attempt to argue that python in a *portage* system is not subject
> to the same constraints.

Yes, and it used to warn you.
 
> But it's not working that way today. Ergo, it is broken.

The problem is that checking system is not enough, portage should also
check that the package is not a dependency of anything in system. The
problem with python is merely an example of what not checking this can do.

For example, glibc could be taken out of system and replaced by a virtual
that could be satisfied by glibc or eblic, but portage should still
complain if you try to remove the only libc you have installed.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The Borg Cable Co: The subscriber's wishes are irrelevant.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system
> > has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a
> > need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of
> > portage.  
> 
> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it
> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is:
> 
> if (pkgmgr=portage)
>   python in @system
> else
>   python !in system
> end

That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special case,
others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts
ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system and
their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg
has failed to do anything useful.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"MSDOS didn't get as bad as it is overnight -- it took over ten years
of careful development."


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 24 Mai 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 20:06:59 Arttu V. wrote:
> > On 5/24/09, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
> > > profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files
> > > can contain several entries). So, you have to run
> > >
> > > find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
> > >
> > > to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually
> > > apply
> >
> > Cascading yes, but I'd say no to the find-command. You should be able
> > to ask portage itself. After all, it has to know your current system
> > set for its own work, let it do the cascading calculations (unions for
> > sets):
>
> Dale asked *where* system is defined, not what it consists of.
>
> These are entirely different questions with entirely different answers.
>
> > emerge -p @system
> >
> > And even better, if I read correctly from portage man-page (look for
> > the "packages" and packages.build file section there), it is nearly
> > trivial to add files to a local system set. Just add
> > asterisk-prepended lines to /etc/portage/profile/packages. Just tried
> > it, it seems to work, got python and games-board/megamek added to my
> > system set according to emerge -p @system! :D
>
> It appears you are completely missing the point. It is indeed very easy to
> add things to the @system set, but we are talking about the system set, and
> it is broken out of the box as shipped. Look at the size of this thread
> already and what it has taken to gain the understanding we have now. How is
> a new user supposed to be able to figure this out?
>
> Portage will not let you unmerge portage or gcc without a fight. It offers
> a way to back up these critical packages. No rational person will attempt
> to argue that python in a *portage* system is not subject to the same
> constraints.
>
> But it's not working that way today. Ergo, it is broken.

maybe you should mention that on gentoo-dev.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 20:11:03 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:26:43 Dale wrote:
>>>   
 Also, is this the file that contains the system set?

 /usr/portage/profiles/base/packages

 If so, python is commented out as is a few others.  Is there a way to
 add files to something in /etc that emerge would consider in addition to
 this file?  In other words, if a user is using portage, is there a place
 that they could set this in /etc so that it overrides the fact it is
 missing in the system set?  Just add python and other missing packages
 to the file and we can carry on.  I assume adding it to world would not
 do any good with buildsyspkg enabled?
 
>>> profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can
>>> contain several entries). So, you have to run
>>>
>>> find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
>>>
>>> to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually
>>> apply to you
>>>   
>> Something like this?
>>
>> r...@smoker / # ls -al /etc/make.profile
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 55 Dec 16 22:09 /etc/make.profile ->
>> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/2008.0/desktop/
>> r...@smoker / #
>>
>> I would assume it uses what the make.profile is linked to.  Correct?
>> Thing is, is there some file supported in /etc/ that is user editable?
>> If not, then it doesn't matter.  If a user edits the file in
>> /usr/portage, it will default back when re-syncing.
>> 
>
> OK, I see what your question is now.
>
> According to 'man 5 portage' you would add it to 
> /etc/portage/profile/packages 
> which you likely have to create yourself
>
>   

I just did.  I did a emerge -ep system to see what it lists.  From my
understanding emerge lists things in the "system" set in bold green. 
There are three that are in light or not bold green.  They are:

[ebuild   R   ] app-admin/eselect-1.1_rc2
[ebuild   R   ] sys-libs/cracklib-2.8.13
[ebuild   R   ] dev-java/sun-jdk-1.6.0.13

I assume those are pulled in as a dependency of something else but I
don't consider them "critical" for portage or to boot.

Python is listed as dark or bold green so I guess it is included in the
system set.

Am I OK now?  Well, as OK as I ever get anyway.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 20:11:03 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:26:43 Dale wrote:
> >> Also, is this the file that contains the system set?
> >>
> >> /usr/portage/profiles/base/packages
> >>
> >> If so, python is commented out as is a few others.  Is there a way to
> >> add files to something in /etc that emerge would consider in addition to
> >> this file?  In other words, if a user is using portage, is there a place
> >> that they could set this in /etc so that it overrides the fact it is
> >> missing in the system set?  Just add python and other missing packages
> >> to the file and we can carry on.  I assume adding it to world would not
> >> do any good with buildsyspkg enabled?
> >
> > profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can
> > contain several entries). So, you have to run
> >
> > find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
> >
> > to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually
> > apply to you
>
> Something like this?
>
> r...@smoker / # ls -al /etc/make.profile
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 55 Dec 16 22:09 /etc/make.profile ->
> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/2008.0/desktop/
> r...@smoker / #
>
> I would assume it uses what the make.profile is linked to.  Correct?
> Thing is, is there some file supported in /etc/ that is user editable?
> If not, then it doesn't matter.  If a user edits the file in
> /usr/portage, it will default back when re-syncing.

OK, I see what your question is now.

According to 'man 5 portage' you would add it to /etc/portage/profile/packages 
which you likely have to create yourself

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 20:06:59 Arttu V. wrote:
> On 5/24/09, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
> > profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can
> > contain several entries). So, you have to run
> >
> > find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
> >
> > to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually
> > apply
>
> Cascading yes, but I'd say no to the find-command. You should be able
> to ask portage itself. After all, it has to know your current system
> set for its own work, let it do the cascading calculations (unions for
> sets):

Dale asked *where* system is defined, not what it consists of. 

These are entirely different questions with entirely different answers.

> emerge -p @system
>
> And even better, if I read correctly from portage man-page (look for
> the "packages" and packages.build file section there), it is nearly
> trivial to add files to a local system set. Just add
> asterisk-prepended lines to /etc/portage/profile/packages. Just tried
> it, it seems to work, got python and games-board/megamek added to my
> system set according to emerge -p @system! :D

It appears you are completely missing the point. It is indeed very easy to add 
things to the @system set, but we are talking about the system set, and it is 
broken out of the box as shipped. Look at the size of this thread already and 
what it has taken to gain the understanding we have now. How is a new user 
supposed to be able to figure this out?

Portage will not let you unmerge portage or gcc without a fight. It offers a 
way to back up these critical packages. No rational person will attempt to 
argue that python in a *portage* system is not subject to the same 
constraints.

But it's not working that way today. Ergo, it is broken.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:26:43 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Also, is this the file that contains the system set?
>>
>> /usr/portage/profiles/base/packages
>>
>> If so, python is commented out as is a few others.  Is there a way to
>> add files to something in /etc that emerge would consider in addition to
>> this file?  In other words, if a user is using portage, is there a place
>> that they could set this in /etc so that it overrides the fact it is
>> missing in the system set?  Just add python and other missing packages
>> to the file and we can carry on.  I assume adding it to world would not
>> do any good with buildsyspkg enabled?
>> 
>
> profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can 
> contain several entries). So, you have to run 
>
> find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
>
> to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually apply 
> to 
> you
>
>
>   

Something like this?

r...@smoker / # ls -al /etc/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 55 Dec 16 22:09 /etc/make.profile ->
/usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/2008.0/desktop/
r...@smoker / #

I would assume it uses what the make.profile is linked to.  Correct? 
Thing is, is there some file supported in /etc/ that is user editable? 
If not, then it doesn't matter.  If a user edits the file in
/usr/portage, it will default back when re-syncing.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Arttu V.]

On 5/24/09, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
> profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can
> contain several entries). So, you have to run
>
> find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages
>
> to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually apply

Cascading yes, but I'd say no to the find-command. You should be able
to ask portage itself. After all, it has to know your current system
set for its own work, let it do the cascading calculations (unions for
sets):

emerge -p @system

And even better, if I read correctly from portage man-page (look for
the "packages" and packages.build file section there), it is nearly
trivial to add files to a local system set. Just add
asterisk-prepended lines to /etc/portage/profile/packages. Just tried
it, it seems to work, got python and games-board/megamek added to my
system set according to emerge -p @system! :D

Gentoo <3 Can't live without it once you start to see just what all is
configurable. :D

-- 
Arttu V.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 19:26:43 Dale wrote:
> Also, is this the file that contains the system set?
>
> /usr/portage/profiles/base/packages
>
> If so, python is commented out as is a few others.  Is there a way to
> add files to something in /etc that emerge would consider in addition to
> this file?  In other words, if a user is using portage, is there a place
> that they could set this in /etc so that it overrides the fact it is
> missing in the system set?  Just add python and other missing packages
> to the file and we can carry on.  I assume adding it to world would not
> do any good with buildsyspkg enabled?

profiles are cascading and support multiple inheritance (parent files can 
contain several entries). So, you have to run 

find /usr/portage/profiles -name packages

to find them all, and apply brain power to find the few that actually apply to 
you


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:26:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>   
>>> 2:  Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even
>>> have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one.  That
>>> was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to
>>> screw with my setting and its meaning.
>>>   
>> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has
>> changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need
>> for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage.
>> 
>
> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it SHOULD BE. 
> The only sane way to do this is:
>
> if (pkgmgr=portage)
>   python in @system
> else
>   python !in system
> end
>
> Any other rendition is just insanely crazy and whilst it may be per spec, is 
> more like the way Windows works than the way Gentoo works Plus it 
> violates 
> the principle of no unexpected side-effects.
>
> Conditionals includes into system should have been in place before this 
> change 
> was made.
>
>
>   

I would also like to know this, what other packages are affected?  Is
python the only one that is missing?  I would rather know this now that
to find out the hard way later on.

Also, is this the file that contains the system set?

/usr/portage/profiles/base/packages

If so, python is commented out as is a few others.  Is there a way to
add files to something in /etc that emerge would consider in addition to
this file?  In other words, if a user is using portage, is there a place
that they could set this in /etc so that it overrides the fact it is
missing in the system set?  Just add python and other missing packages
to the file and we can carry on.  I assume adding it to world would not
do any good with buildsyspkg enabled?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 16:26:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > 2:  Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even
> > have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one.  That
> > was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to
> > screw with my setting and its meaning.
>
> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has
> changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need
> for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage.

That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it SHOULD BE. 
The only sane way to do this is:

if (pkgmgr=portage)
python in @system
else
python !in system
end

Any other rendition is just insanely crazy and whilst it may be per spec, is 
more like the way Windows works than the way Gentoo works Plus it violates 
the principle of no unexpected side-effects.

Conditionals includes into system should have been in place before this change 
was made.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:17:07 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>   
>> 1:  If I accidentally remove python, portage will not say a word as far
>> as warning me this is bad.  This is what got the OP into this.
>> 
>
> Yes, and that's a recent change, presumably as part of the move to make
> Gentoo and the portage tree work with any valid package manager.
>
>   
>> 2:  Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even
>> have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one.  That
>> was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to
>> screw with my setting and its meaning.
>> 
>
> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has
> changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need
> for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage.
>   

True but the end result is as I described.  It's no longer stored
because it was removed from system, presumably because of other package
managers not needing it.

>   
>> 3:  Portage is the package manager for Gentoo.  As Alan said, it always
>> has been and most likely always will.  I'm not against having other
>> package managers but if they are going to start messing up my settings,
>> then I plan to gripe at least a little.  If they are not going to
>> support buildsyspkg then it needs to be announced and removed.  False
>> security is worse than none at all. 
>> 
>
> That's not the case. The problem is that buildsyspkg does exactly what it
> says, which is not what you want. The definition of buildsyspkg should be
> changed so that it build binary packages for all packages needed to
> install @system, not just the packages named in 'system.
>   

See above.  It used to store this but because of the above, it doesn't
anymore.  It's changed because the system file was changed.  It appears
to me that this needs to be added back to system like it used to be.

>   
>> My opinion on how this SHOULD work.  If I do a emerge -e system, every
>> package it builds should have a binary saved for back up.  It doesn't
>> matter if it is a dependency on something else or not, it should be
>> built and stored.
>> 
>
> Exactly, and a buildsyspkg user should file an enhancement bug requesting
> this change in its behaviour.
>
>   
>> Dale is going to go change this to buildpkg and run emerge -e system.
>> 
>
> That's not the way to deal with it. Address the problem,don't hide from
> it :)
>
>   
>> Let's see if that even works or not.
>> 
>
> It will, at the expense of more storage space. I've used buildpkg for
> years.
>
>
>   

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:17:07 -0500, Dale wrote:

> 1:  If I accidentally remove python, portage will not say a word as far
> as warning me this is bad.  This is what got the OP into this.

Yes, and that's a recent change, presumably as part of the move to make
Gentoo and the portage tree work with any valid package manager.

> 2:  Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even
> have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one.  That
> was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to
> screw with my setting and its meaning.

Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has
changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need
for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage.

> 3:  Portage is the package manager for Gentoo.  As Alan said, it always
> has been and most likely always will.  I'm not against having other
> package managers but if they are going to start messing up my settings,
> then I plan to gripe at least a little.  If they are not going to
> support buildsyspkg then it needs to be announced and removed.  False
> security is worse than none at all. 

That's not the case. The problem is that buildsyspkg does exactly what it
says, which is not what you want. The definition of buildsyspkg should be
changed so that it build binary packages for all packages needed to
install @system, not just the packages named in 'system.

> My opinion on how this SHOULD work.  If I do a emerge -e system, every
> package it builds should have a binary saved for back up.  It doesn't
> matter if it is a dependency on something else or not, it should be
> built and stored.

Exactly, and a buildsyspkg user should file an enhancement bug requesting
this change in its behaviour.

> Dale is going to go change this to buildpkg and run emerge -e system.

That's not the way to deal with it. Address the problem,don't hide from
it :)

> Let's see if that even works or not.

It will, at the expense of more storage space. I've used buildpkg for
years.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

STATUS QUO is Latin for "the mess we're in."


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:08:40 +0200
Alan McKinnon  wrote:

> On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:08:50 Jorge Morais wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple
> > python installations.
> >
> > Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this
> > is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess?
> >
> > One idea: you can can recompile python with a safe
> > prefix (such as a subdir of your home), issue make install (not as root,
> > for increased safety) and see where Python install its files relative to
> > the prefix, so you can delete them from your system
> > (to be more careful before deleting a file, you can issue
> > qfile  to see if it is owned by a portage-installed package.
> > And in the end you can emerge python properly, from the sources, so all
> > the ebuild logic (which is more than just ./configure, make and make
> > install) gets applied, and you get a Python installation that respects your
> > USE flags, CFLAGS and other system-specific settings (obviously you don't
> > get such a system-customized python when you use the binary package from
> > tinderbox).
> 
> make/install with --prefix /usr/local/
> 
> That's what it's there for.
You seem to be suggesting what he *should have done*
The point is, he has already installed multiple (at least 3.0.1 and 2.6.2)
vanilla ("fresh" from http://www.python.org/download/releases/)
python versions manually (with
./configure -with-fpectl -infodir=/usr/share/info/ -mandir=/usr/share/man
make
make install prefix=/usr
)
and then he tried emerge -va python

He followed instructions from this damn blog
http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what

I fear that his system is now a mess, with remains of multiple python versions.
I suggested a idea for how to clean it up (read the quoted text above,
starting with "One idea:")

Anyway, some conclusions:
- The blog solution seems to be a quite bad one, for multiple reasons.
- A better and easier solution would be to install a binary package from
tinderbox. I think he wouldn't even have to extract the tarball manually
with tar; he can use qmerge from portage-utils (written in C AFAIK); I'm
not sure, haven't used qmerge so far

-- 
Software is like sex: it is better when it is free. --Linus Torvalds

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Keith Dart]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:09:37 -0300
Jorge Morais  wrote:

> You don't seem to have taken into account that he has installed
> multiple vanilla python versions *manually* (with ./configure, make,
> and make install as root), to /usr, and then installed Python with
> Portage.

Oh, didn't read the whole thread. 

-- 

-- ~
   Keith Dart 
   public key: ID: 19017044
   
   =

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 24 May 2009 11:28:30 Neil Bothwick wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:07:13 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> 
 Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be
 satisfied by Paludis, which does not need Python.
 
>>> Lucky for you, I know your sense of humour by now :-)
>>>
>>> Doesn't help portage users though, and portage is still the default
>>> package manager on Gentoo. I don't see that changing any time soon, if
>>> ever.
>>>
>>> Besides, unless you do it manually, you need portage to install
>>> paludis, right? Without python, you don't get paludis.
>>>
>>> Either way, it's a bug. portage supports inheriting multiple parent
>>> profiles. One approach would be to add a new collection of profiles in
>>> addition to the existing base/, default/ and targets/ - called say
>>> pkgmgr.
>>>   
>> Is it really a bug? Postage is the default for the virtual and it depends
>> on python, so there is no need for python itself to be in @system. This
>> doesn't cause any problems except the one Dale mentions, which is that
>> FEATURES=buildsyspkg does not build a package for python. man make.conf
>> describes this option as "Build binary packages for just packages in the
>> system set. Which is accurate but maybe not the desired behaviour. The
>> option should really by to build packages for packages in @system and
>> their dependencies. Put another way, build all the packages necessary to
>> run "emerge -eK @system".
>>
>> I'd suggest filing an enhancement request on b.g.o.
>> 
>
> Using the "this is very unexpected behaviour" definition of bug, I certainly 
> do call it a bug. All three of the following commands, produce the same end 
> result (a b0rked system), but are treated very differently. I my mind, delete 
> warnings should be handled the same as installs, by taking the entire dep 
> tree 
> into account:
>
> a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC python
> Password:
>
>   
 These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 
>
>  dev-lang/python
> selected: 2.5.4-r2 2.6.2
>protected: none
>  omitted: none
>
>   
 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.
 
>
> Would you like to unmerge these packages? [Yes/No] n
>
> Quitting.
>
> a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC portage
>
>   
 These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 
>  * Not unmerging package sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc33 since there is no valid
>  * reason for portage to unmerge itself.
>
>   
 No packages selected for removal by unmerge
 
> a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC gcc
>
>   
 These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 
>
>
> !!! 'sys-devel/gcc' is part of your system profile.
> !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
>
>
>  sys-devel/gcc
> selected: 4.3.3-r2
>protected: none
>  omitted: none
>
>   
 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.
 
>
> Would you like to unmerge these packages? [Yes/No] n
>
> Quitting.
>
> I'll file a feature request
>
>   

+1 

All I know is this:

1:  If I accidentally remove python, portage will not say a word as far
as warning me this is bad.  This is what got the OP into this.  If he
had this warning, he may not have done this.  Prevention is the best way
but even that doesn't work.

2:  Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even
have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one.  That
was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to
screw with my setting and its meaning.  I guess now buildpkg is my only
option.  It's the only way to insure I can recover if I make a boo boo.

3:  Portage is the package manager for Gentoo.  As Alan said, it always
has been and most likely always will.  I'm not against having other
package managers but if they are going to start messing up my settings,
then I plan to gripe at least a little.  If they are not going to
support buildsyspkg then it needs to be announced and removed.  False
security is worse than none at all. 

My opinion on how this SHOULD work.  If I do a emerge -e system, every
package it builds should have a binary saved for back up.  It doesn't
matter if it is a dependency on something else or not, it should be
built and stored.  That was the purpose of that.

Dale is going to go change this to buildpkg and run emerge -e system. 
Let's see if that even works or not.

Thanks Alan.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 11:28:30 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:07:13 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be
> > > satisfied by Paludis, which does not need Python.
> >
> > Lucky for you, I know your sense of humour by now :-)
> >
> > Doesn't help portage users though, and portage is still the default
> > package manager on Gentoo. I don't see that changing any time soon, if
> > ever.
> >
> > Besides, unless you do it manually, you need portage to install
> > paludis, right? Without python, you don't get paludis.
> >
> > Either way, it's a bug. portage supports inheriting multiple parent
> > profiles. One approach would be to add a new collection of profiles in
> > addition to the existing base/, default/ and targets/ - called say
> > pkgmgr.
>
> Is it really a bug? Postage is the default for the virtual and it depends
> on python, so there is no need for python itself to be in @system. This
> doesn't cause any problems except the one Dale mentions, which is that
> FEATURES=buildsyspkg does not build a package for python. man make.conf
> describes this option as "Build binary packages for just packages in the
> system set. Which is accurate but maybe not the desired behaviour. The
> option should really by to build packages for packages in @system and
> their dependencies. Put another way, build all the packages necessary to
> run "emerge -eK @system".
>
> I'd suggest filing an enhancement request on b.g.o.

Using the "this is very unexpected behaviour" definition of bug, I certainly 
do call it a bug. All three of the following commands, produce the same end 
result (a b0rked system), but are treated very differently. I my mind, delete 
warnings should be handled the same as installs, by taking the entire dep tree 
into account:

a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC python
Password:

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:

 dev-lang/python
selected: 2.5.4-r2 2.6.2
   protected: none
 omitted: none

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

Would you like to unmerge these packages? [Yes/No] n

Quitting.

a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC portage

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 * Not unmerging package sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc33 since there is no valid
 * reason for portage to unmerge itself.

>>> No packages selected for removal by unmerge
a...@nazgul ~ $ sudo emerge -avC gcc

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:


!!! 'sys-devel/gcc' is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.


 sys-devel/gcc
selected: 4.3.3-r2
   protected: none
 omitted: none

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

Would you like to unmerge these packages? [Yes/No] n

Quitting.

I'll file a feature request

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 01:52:45 -0700
Keith Dart  wrote:

> On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:08:50 -0300
> Jorge Morais  wrote:
> 
> > Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple
> > python installations.
> > 
> > Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this
> > is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess?
> 
> Python is designed to work with multiple versions installed. Therefore,
> the ebuild is also slotted so you can have multiple versions installed.
> Use "eselect python" to choose which one you want to use as the
> default. Also, don't forget to run python-updater after recent changes
> that installed Python 2.6 for you. You can always unmerge the specific
> old version afterwards. e.g. 
> "emerge --unmerge =dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2"
You don't seem to have taken into account that he has installed
multiple vanilla python versions *manually* (with ./configure, make, and
make install as root), to /usr, and then installed Python with Portage.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sun, 24 May 2009 11:07:13 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be
> > satisfied by Paludis, which does not need Python.  
> 
> Lucky for you, I know your sense of humour by now :-)
> 
> Doesn't help portage users though, and portage is still the default
> package manager on Gentoo. I don't see that changing any time soon, if
> ever.
> 
> Besides, unless you do it manually, you need portage to install
> paludis, right? Without python, you don't get paludis.
> 
> Either way, it's a bug. portage supports inheriting multiple parent
> profiles. One approach would be to add a new collection of profiles in
> addition to the existing base/, default/ and targets/ - called say
> pkgmgr.

Is it really a bug? Postage is the default for the virtual and it depends
on python, so there is no need for python itself to be in @system. This
doesn't cause any problems except the one Dale mentions, which is that
FEATURES=buildsyspkg does not build a package for python. man make.conf
describes this option as "Build binary packages for just packages in the
system set. Which is accurate but maybe not the desired behaviour. The
option should really by to build packages for packages in @system and
their dependencies. Put another way, build all the packages necessary to
run "emerge -eK @system". 

I'd suggest filing an enhancement request on b.g.o.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

But I thought YOU did the backups...


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 24 May 2009 00:08:50 Jorge Morais wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Jon Hardcastle  wrote:
> > > And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
> > > http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
> > > ?
>
> Have you not yet tried to get python from a binary package?
> See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-4669397.html#4669397
> That is both the easiest and cleanest solution I have found so far,
> (not that I have researched much, I admit).
> And maybe you don't even have to extract the tarball manually with
> tar; maybe you can use qmerge from app-portage/portage-utils
> (AFAIK it is written in C).
>
> Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple
> python installations.
>
> Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this
> is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess?
>
> One idea: you can can recompile python with a safe
> prefix (such as a subdir of your home), issue make install (not as root,
> for increased safety) and see where Python install its files relative to
> the prefix, so you can delete them from your system
> (to be more careful before deleting a file, you can issue
> qfile  to see if it is owned by a portage-installed package.
> And in the end you can emerge python properly, from the sources, so all
> the ebuild logic (which is more than just ./configure, make and make
> install) gets applied, and you get a Python installation that respects your
> USE flags, CFLAGS and other system-specific settings (obviously you don't
> get such a system-customized python when you use the binary package from
> tinderbox).

make/install with --prefix /usr/local/

That's what it's there for.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 23 May 2009 22:02:26 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:59:10 -0500, Dale wrote:
> > Hmmm, I think someone needs to rethink the system set then.  After all,
> > portage does not work well without python.  It should keep a binary copy
> > but it should also warn you if you are typing without your thinking cap
> > on.
>
> Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be   satisfied
> by Paludis, which does not need Python.

Lucky for you, I know your sense of humour by now :-)

Doesn't help portage users though, and portage is still the default package 
manager on Gentoo. I don't see that changing any time soon, if ever.

Besides, unless you do it manually, you need portage to install paludis, 
right? Without python, you don't get paludis.

Either way, it's a bug. portage supports inheriting multiple parent profiles. 
One approach would be to add a new collection of profiles in addition to the 
existing base/, default/ and targets/ - called say pkgmgr.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Keith Dart]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 19:08:50 -0300
Jorge Morais  wrote:

> Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple
> python installations.
> 
> Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this
> is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess?

Python is designed to work with multiple versions installed. Therefore,
the ebuild is also slotted so you can have multiple versions installed.
Use "eselect python" to choose which one you want to use as the
default. Also, don't forget to run python-updater after recent changes
that installed Python 2.6 for you. You can always unmerge the specific
old version afterwards. e.g. 
"emerge --unmerge =dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2"

HTH,
Keith

-- 

-- ~
   Keith Dart 
   public key: ID: 19017044
   
   =

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
Jon Hardcastle  wrote:

> > 
> > And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
> > http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
> > ?
Have you not yet tried to get python from a binary package?
See http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-4669397.html#4669397
That is both the easiest and cleanest solution I have found so far,
(not that I have researched much, I admit).
And maybe you don't even have to extract the tarball manually with
tar; maybe you can use qmerge from app-portage/portage-utils
(AFAIK it is written in C).

Now, I do have concerns about your system having remains of multiple
python installations.

Any person with python knowledge can give an opinion on whether this
is dangerous? And what is the easiest way to clean the mess?

One idea: you can can recompile python with a safe
prefix (such as a subdir of your home), issue make install (not as root,
for increased safety) and see where Python install its files relative to
the prefix, so you can delete them from your system
(to be more careful before deleting a file, you can issue
qfile  to see if it is owned by a portage-installed package.
And in the end you can emerge python properly, from the sources, so all
the ebuild logic (which is more than just ./configure, make and make install)
gets applied, and you get a Python installation that respects your USE flags,
CFLAGS and other system-specific settings (obviously you don't get such a
system-customized python when you use the binary package from tinderbox).

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:59:10 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>   
>> Hmmm, I think someone needs to rethink the system set then.  After all,
>> portage does not work well without python.  It should keep a binary copy
>> but it should also warn you if you are typing without your thinking cap
>> on.
>> 
>
> Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be   satisfied
> by Paludis, which does not need Python.
>
>
>   

But if a person, me or the OP, is using portage then python needs to be
in there.  After all, isn't portage supported by Gentoo still?  Are we
all supposed to switch to Paludis so we will get a warning before
borking our system?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Neil Bothwick]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:59:10 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Hmmm, I think someone needs to rethink the system set then.  After all,
> portage does not work well without python.  It should keep a binary copy
> but it should also warn you if you are typing without your thinking cap
> on.

Portage is not in system, only the virtual. That can be satisfied
by Paludis, which does not need Python.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ask a silly person, get a silly answer


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 23 May 2009 13:52:13 Arttu V. wrote:
>   
>> Note how binutils still is within the system set and gets the extra
>> warning, while python doesn't get the special system set warning with
>> the three exclamation marks? I.e., python *is no longer* in the system
>> set, probably removed by the very change I gave a link for in previous
>> email.
>>
>> AFAIK (haven't checked in portage code), buildsyspkg and such only
>> work with the packages explicitly mentioned in the system set, so
>> binutils is in, python is (nowadays) out -- and that probably explains
>> also what is happening on your smoker. :)
>>
>> Anyone finding flaws in my theories or facts or observations that
>> outright nullify them? :)
>> 
>
> No, I think you are right, and I think somebody cocked up badly.
>
> Examining the current profiles shows that portage and python were removed 
> from 
> base, and python was included back in releases/2008.0/packages (amongst 
> others):
>
> profiles # grep -r 'sys-apps/portage' * | grep packages:
> base/packages:#*>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
> default-linux/amd64/2007.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2
> releases/2008.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.4
> selinux/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.49-r15
> selinux/2007.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2
> profiles # grep -r 'dev-lang/python' * | grep packages:
> base/packages:#*dev-lang/python
>
> I haven't followed this entire thread, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a 
> reasonable explanation might be:
>
> A Gentoo system needs a package manager, but it's doesn't have to be portage. 
> Solution: remove the hardcoded portage and python from base, include them 
> elsewhere and created new profiles for paludis and pkg-merge users.
>
> Except, python got omitted and there's no paludis (yet)
>
> If so, this is a bug and should be reported
>
>
>   

You or the OP care to report it?  If you need info from me, just let me
know the commands.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 23 May 2009 13:52:13 Arttu V. wrote:
> Note how binutils still is within the system set and gets the extra
> warning, while python doesn't get the special system set warning with
> the three exclamation marks? I.e., python *is no longer* in the system
> set, probably removed by the very change I gave a link for in previous
> email.
>
> AFAIK (haven't checked in portage code), buildsyspkg and such only
> work with the packages explicitly mentioned in the system set, so
> binutils is in, python is (nowadays) out -- and that probably explains
> also what is happening on your smoker. :)
>
> Anyone finding flaws in my theories or facts or observations that
> outright nullify them? :)

No, I think you are right, and I think somebody cocked up badly.

Examining the current profiles shows that portage and python were removed from 
base, and python was included back in releases/2008.0/packages (amongst 
others):

profiles # grep -r 'sys-apps/portage' * | grep packages:
base/packages:#*>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22
default-linux/amd64/2007.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2
releases/2008.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.4.4
selinux/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.49-r15
selinux/2007.0/packages:>=sys-apps/portage-2.1.2
profiles # grep -r 'dev-lang/python' * | grep packages:
base/packages:#*dev-lang/python

I haven't followed this entire thread, so correct me if I'm wrong, but a 
reasonable explanation might be:

A Gentoo system needs a package manager, but it's doesn't have to be portage. 
Solution: remove the hardcoded portage and python from base, include them 
elsewhere and created new profiles for paludis and pkg-merge users.

Except, python got omitted and there's no paludis (yet)

If so, this is a bug and should be reported


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Arttu V. wrote:
> On 5/23/09, Dale  wrote:
>   
>> This is what I get with this command:
>>
>> r...@smoker / # emerge -ep system | grep python
>> [ebuild   R   ] app-admin/python-updater-0.5
>> [ebuild   R   ] dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2
>> r...@smoker / #
>>
>> So python is there if you do it emptytree.
>> 
>
> emptytree pulls in *all* dependencies, regardless of whether they are
> in the system set or even if they are just regular dependencies
> (random packages) from an external overlay. So you're not comparing
> apples to apples there with -e, you're getting lot of false positives
> from outside the real system set.
>
> It is still a good question why one would have any system set packages
> having critical dependencies to non-system set packages, but reasoning
> for that has to be asked from the portage devs ...
>
> But backing up a little, try this instead for an amusement (remember
> to --pretend or --ask):
>
> ~ # emerge -pvC python
>
>   
 These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 
>
>  dev-lang/python
> selected: 2.5.4-r2
>protected: none
>  omitted: none
>
>   
 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.
 
>
> ~ # emerge -pvC binutils
>
>   
 These are the packages that would be unmerged:
 
>
>
> !!! 'sys-devel/binutils' is part of your system profile.
> !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
>
>
>  sys-devel/binutils
> selected: 2.18-r3
>protected: none
>  omitted: none
>
>   
 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.
 
>
> ~ #
>
>
> Note how binutils still is within the system set and gets the extra
> warning, while python doesn't get the special system set warning with
> the three exclamation marks? I.e., python *is no longer* in the system
> set, probably removed by the very change I gave a link for in previous
> email.
>
> AFAIK (haven't checked in portage code), buildsyspkg and such only
> work with the packages explicitly mentioned in the system set, so
> binutils is in, python is (nowadays) out -- and that probably explains
> also what is happening on your smoker. :)
>
> Anyone finding flaws in my theories or facts or observations that
> outright nullify them? :)
>
>   

Hmmm, I think someone needs to rethink the system set then.  After all,
portage does not work well without python.  It should keep a binary copy
but it should also warn you if you are typing without your thinking cap on.

Anyone else think this is a bug?  Or should be thought out again as to
being included is system set?

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Arttu V.]

On 5/23/09, Dale  wrote:
> This is what I get with this command:
>
> r...@smoker / # emerge -ep system | grep python
> [ebuild   R   ] app-admin/python-updater-0.5
> [ebuild   R   ] dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2
> r...@smoker / #
>
> So python is there if you do it emptytree.

emptytree pulls in *all* dependencies, regardless of whether they are
in the system set or even if they are just regular dependencies
(random packages) from an external overlay. So you're not comparing
apples to apples there with -e, you're getting lot of false positives
from outside the real system set.

It is still a good question why one would have any system set packages
having critical dependencies to non-system set packages, but reasoning
for that has to be asked from the portage devs ...

But backing up a little, try this instead for an amusement (remember
to --pretend or --ask):

~ # emerge -pvC python

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:

 dev-lang/python
selected: 2.5.4-r2
   protected: none
 omitted: none

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

~ # emerge -pvC binutils

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:


!!! 'sys-devel/binutils' is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.


 sys-devel/binutils
selected: 2.18-r3
   protected: none
 omitted: none

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

~ #


Note how binutils still is within the system set and gets the extra
warning, while python doesn't get the special system set warning with
the three exclamation marks? I.e., python *is no longer* in the system
set, probably removed by the very change I gave a link for in previous
email.

AFAIK (haven't checked in portage code), buildsyspkg and such only
work with the packages explicitly mentioned in the system set, so
binutils is in, python is (nowadays) out -- and that probably explains
also what is happening on your smoker. :)

Anyone finding flaws in my theories or facts or observations that
outright nullify them? :)

-- 
Arttu V.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Arttu V. wrote:
> Dale wrote:
> > You may want to look into that setting for next time.  I did however
> > notice that although python is in the system set, it is not saving a
> > copy for some reason.  Anybody know why this setting is not working?
> >
> > FEATURES="--keep-going buildsyspkg sandbox fixpackages"
> >
> > Is the buildsyspkg option not valid anymore?
>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages?r1=1.40&r2=1.41
>
>
> Python appears to be gone from the base system? Or maybe I'm looking
> at the wrong file? Anyway, 'emerge -pv @system | grep python' would
> seem to agree here.
>
> Now I don't have a PhD in Gentoo Package Manglement (barely passed the
> kindergarten level so far?), but that commit looks rather unsettling
> for other parts as well. Are the devs switching over to paludis in
> droves? Or why is sys-apps/portage commented out as well? Why is it
> replaced by the hard-coded ("old-style"?) virtual/portage?
>

This is what I get with this command:

r...@smoker / # emerge -ep system | grep python
[ebuild   R   ] app-admin/python-updater-0.5
[ebuild   R   ] dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2
r...@smoker / #

So python is there if you do it emptytree.  I still don't have a binary
of this in packages/All tho.  Also, since portage has to have python,
why is it not saving this?  I put that line in make.conf just in case I
do something like the OP did by mistake.  It appears that this isn't
working.

Ideas?  This a bug?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

P. S.  No PhD here either.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jon Hardcastle]

--- On Sat, 23/5/09, Jorge Morais  wrote:

> From: Jorge Morais 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Date: Saturday, 23 May, 2009, 8:55 AM
> > Thank you! Thank you! Thank
> you!
> > 
> > I followed this
> > 
> > http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what
> > 
> > which worked - in the end. couple of caveats tho for
> anyone 'that follows' get python from their site as the ftp
> link in this article is out of date.
> > 
> > http://www.python.org/download/releases/
> > 
> > also I initially tried 3.01 and that didn't work so i
> installed 2.6.2 which worked 'out of the box' i then tested
> with 'emerge' and am now running 'emerge -va python' 
> > 
> > Cheers guys!
> > 
> > Thanks to Dale too!
> 
> Glad it worked.
> But, I don't know what will happen when the properly
> emerged python
> overwrites the manually installed Python.
> 
> Does anybody know if the manual python install is
> "slotted", in the sense
> that it installs files in /usr/lib/python2.6,
> /usr/include/python2.6, etc?
> If it isn't, and Portage installs a slotted Python, the old
> files wouldn't
> be overwritten.
> And even if it is, the differences between the
> differently-configured and
> super-patched new python and the vanilla old python could
> result in
> a different set of file names, so it is possible that the
> old python
> will not be totally overwritten by the portage-emerged
> python.
> 
> If I were you, I would at the very least read the log
> (specially its tail)
> of the python emerge (emerge logs normally go to
> /var/log/emerge).
> And you did log the files installed by the manual python
> install,
> didn't you?
> 
> And why did you try python 3.01 first? You should try a
> similar vesion to
> what you were previously running. And specifically python
> 3.01 is crazy,
> as it is widely known that it is *not* compatible with
> python 2.x software.
> And did you properly uninstall python 3.0.1?
> 
> Also, I didn't like the instructions in this blog very
> much.
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to configure python like
> portage would?
> For example, in my system, where the last python install
> was
> dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2  USE="ncurses readline ssl
> threads xml -berkdb -build -doc -examples -gdbm -ipv6
> -sqlite -tk -ucs2 -wininst"
> 
> the configure line was (from the log)
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
> --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
> --datadir=/usr/share --sysconfdir=/etc
> --localstatedir=/var/lib --with-fpectl --enable-shared
> --disable-ipv6 --infodir=${prefix}/share/info
> --mandir=${prefix}/share/man --with-libc=
> --enable-unicode=ucs4 --with-threads
> --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu
> 
> Maybe it would  be nice to install python to 
> /usr/local (I'm not sure),
> but if you are going to install it in /usr (like portage),
> I think you
> might as well use the same configure line portage would.
> And if you wanted to be really clean, you could apply the
> patches that
> portage applies.
> 
> And most importantly,
> *was this necessary*?
> Couldn't he have emerged python by invoking
> ebuild
> /usr/port/usr/portage/dev-lang/python/python-2.6.2.ebuild
> merge
> ?
> This would do everyting correctly.
> And wouldn't it work without Python, since it is written in
> Bash?
> AFAIK, what needs Python is the high level interface to the
> portage
> system, while the low-level interface only needs Bash (but
> I'm
> totally not sure).
> 
> And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
> http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
> ?
> 
> 

Also that emerge borked ebuild too.

---
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: j...@ehardcastle.com
'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'

Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
---

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jon Hardcastle]

--- On Sat, 23/5/09, Jorge Morais  wrote:

> From: Jorge Morais 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Date: Saturday, 23 May, 2009, 8:55 AM
> > Thank you! Thank you! Thank
> you!
> > 
> > I followed this
> > 
> > http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what
> > 
> > which worked - in the end. couple of caveats tho for
> anyone 'that follows' get python from their site as the ftp
> link in this article is out of date.
> > 
> > http://www.python.org/download/releases/
> > 
> > also I initially tried 3.01 and that didn't work so i
> installed 2.6.2 which worked 'out of the box' i then tested
> with 'emerge' and am now running 'emerge -va python' 
> > 
> > Cheers guys!
> > 
> > Thanks to Dale too!
> 
> Glad it worked.
> But, I don't know what will happen when the properly
> emerged python
> overwrites the manually installed Python.
> 
> Does anybody know if the manual python install is
> "slotted", in the sense
> that it installs files in /usr/lib/python2.6,
> /usr/include/python2.6, etc?
> If it isn't, and Portage installs a slotted Python, the old
> files wouldn't
> be overwritten.
> And even if it is, the differences between the
> differently-configured and
> super-patched new python and the vanilla old python could
> result in
> a different set of file names, so it is possible that the
> old python
> will not be totally overwritten by the portage-emerged
> python.
> 
> If I were you, I would at the very least read the log
> (specially its tail)
> of the python emerge (emerge logs normally go to
> /var/log/emerge).
> And you did log the files installed by the manual python
> install,
> didn't you?
> 
> And why did you try python 3.01 first? You should try a
> similar vesion to
> what you were previously running. And specifically python
> 3.01 is crazy,
> as it is widely known that it is *not* compatible with
> python 2.x software.
> And did you properly uninstall python 3.0.1?
> 
> Also, I didn't like the instructions in this blog very
> much.
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate to configure python like
> portage would?
> For example, in my system, where the last python install
> was
> dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2  USE="ncurses readline ssl
> threads xml -berkdb -build -doc -examples -gdbm -ipv6
> -sqlite -tk -ucs2 -wininst"
> 
> the configure line was (from the log)
> ./configure --prefix=/usr --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
> --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info
> --datadir=/usr/share --sysconfdir=/etc
> --localstatedir=/var/lib --with-fpectl --enable-shared
> --disable-ipv6 --infodir=${prefix}/share/info
> --mandir=${prefix}/share/man --with-libc=
> --enable-unicode=ucs4 --with-threads
> --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu
> 
> Maybe it would  be nice to install python to 
> /usr/local (I'm not sure),
> but if you are going to install it in /usr (like portage),
> I think you
> might as well use the same configure line portage would.
> And if you wanted to be really clean, you could apply the
> patches that
> portage applies.
> 
> And most importantly,
> *was this necessary*?
> Couldn't he have emerged python by invoking
> ebuild
> /usr/port/usr/portage/dev-lang/python/python-2.6.2.ebuild
> merge
> ?
> This would do everyting correctly.
> And wouldn't it work without Python, since it is written in
> Bash?
> AFAIK, what needs Python is the high level interface to the
> portage
> system, while the low-level interface only needs Bash (but
> I'm
> totally not sure).
> 
> And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
> http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
> ?
> 
> 

As it happens it didn't work after all. The emerge broke it again and i got an 
error from python.

All of your advise here is fantastic and i urge anyone that follows to do as 
you suggest - but i didn't fully uninstall either python install and i plan to 
just leave them minding their own business (hopefully) as i cant be bothered to 
track all the files down. 

Your final line suggestion to use ebuild worked - although i had to change the 
path. I am running emerge -va python a and it had the same effect as install 
from wget and then emerging it. I get

  File "/usr/bin/emerge", line 41
except PermissionDenied, e:
   ^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax

Any clues here?

---
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: j...@ehardcastle.com
'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'

Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
---

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 04:55:04 -0300
Jorge Morais  wrote:

> Couldn't he have emerged python by invoking
> ebuild /usr/port/usr/portage/dev-lang/python/python-2.6.2.ebuild merge
> ?
> This would do everyting correctly.
> And wouldn't it work without Python, since it is written in Bash?
> AFAIK, what needs Python is the high level interface to the portage
> system, while the low-level interface only needs Bash (but I'm
> totally not sure).
Please forget this stupidity. The ebuild command is written in Python,
not Bash (should have written the email with less haste)
> 
> And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
> http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
> ?
But this point still stands.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jorge Morais]

> Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
> 
> I followed this
> 
> http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what
> 
> which worked - in the end. couple of caveats tho for anyone 'that follows' 
> get python from their site as the ftp link in this article is out of date.
> 
> http://www.python.org/download/releases/
> 
> also I initially tried 3.01 and that didn't work so i installed 2.6.2 which 
> worked 'out of the box' i then tested with 'emerge' and am now running 
> 'emerge -va python' 
> 
> Cheers guys!
> 
> Thanks to Dale too!

Glad it worked.
But, I don't know what will happen when the properly emerged python
overwrites the manually installed Python.

Does anybody know if the manual python install is "slotted", in the sense
that it installs files in /usr/lib/python2.6, /usr/include/python2.6, etc?
If it isn't, and Portage installs a slotted Python, the old files wouldn't
be overwritten.
And even if it is, the differences between the differently-configured and
super-patched new python and the vanilla old python could result in
a different set of file names, so it is possible that the old python
will not be totally overwritten by the portage-emerged python.

If I were you, I would at the very least read the log (specially its tail)
of the python emerge (emerge logs normally go to /var/log/emerge).
And you did log the files installed by the manual python install,
didn't you?

And why did you try python 3.01 first? You should try a similar vesion to
what you were previously running. And specifically python 3.01 is crazy,
as it is widely known that it is *not* compatible with python 2.x software.
And did you properly uninstall python 3.0.1?

Also, I didn't like the instructions in this blog very much.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to configure python like
portage would?
For example, in my system, where the last python install was
dev-lang/python-2.5.4-r2  USE="ncurses readline ssl threads xml -berkdb -build 
-doc -examples -gdbm -ipv6 -sqlite -tk -ucs2 -wininst"

the configure line was (from the log)
./configure --prefix=/usr --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --mandir=/usr/share/man 
--infodir=/usr/share/info --datadir=/usr/share --sysconfdir=/etc 
--localstatedir=/var/lib --with-fpectl --enable-shared --disable-ipv6 
--infodir=${prefix}/share/info --mandir=${prefix}/share/man --with-libc= 
--enable-unicode=ucs4 --with-threads --build=i686-pc-linux-gnu

Maybe it would  be nice to install python to  /usr/local (I'm not sure),
but if you are going to install it in /usr (like portage), I think you
might as well use the same configure line portage would.
And if you wanted to be really clean, you could apply the patches that
portage applies.

And most importantly,
*was this necessary*?
Couldn't he have emerged python by invoking
ebuild /usr/port/usr/portage/dev-lang/python/python-2.6.2.ebuild merge
?
This would do everyting correctly.
And wouldn't it work without Python, since it is written in Bash?
AFAIK, what needs Python is the high level interface to the portage
system, while the low-level interface only needs Bash (but I'm
totally not sure).

And finally, couldn't he have gotten a binary package from
http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/dev-lang/
?

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Arttu V.]

Dale wrote:
> You may want to look into that setting for next time.  I did however
> notice that although python is in the system set, it is not saving a
> copy for some reason.  Anybody know why this setting is not working?
>
> FEATURES="--keep-going buildsyspkg sandbox fixpackages"
>
> Is the buildsyspkg option not valid anymore?

http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/packages?r1=1.40&r2=1.41

Python appears to be gone from the base system? Or maybe I'm looking at 
the wrong file? Anyway, 'emerge -pv @system | grep python' would seem to 
agree here.


Now I don't have a PhD in Gentoo Package Manglement (barely passed the 
kindergarten level so far?), but that commit looks rather unsettling for 
other parts as well. Are the devs switching over to paludis in droves? 
Or why is sys-apps/portage commented out as well? Why is it replaced by 
the hard-coded ("old-style"?) virtual/portage?


--
Arttu V.

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Jon Hardcastle wrote:

>>

> Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

> I followed this

> http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what

> which worked - in the end. couple of caveats tho for anyone 'that
follows' get python from their site as the ftp link in this article is
out of date.

> http://www.python.org/download/releases/

> also I initially tried 3.01 and that didn't work so i installed 2.6.2
which worked 'out of the box' i then tested with 'emerge' and am now
running 'emerge -va python'

> Cheers guys!

> Thanks to Dale too!


You may want to look into that setting for next time.  I did however
notice that although python is in the system set, it is not saving a
copy for some reason.  Anybody know why this setting is not working?

FEATURES="--keep-going buildsyspkg sandbox fixpackages"

Is the buildsyspkg option not valid anymore?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jon Hardcastle]

--- On Sat, 23/5/09, Michal Sroka  wrote:

> From: Michal Sroka 
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Date: Saturday, 23 May, 2009, 12:13 AM
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Download python package from internet and install it
> manually.
> Afterwards, when emerge get functional re-emerge python.
> 
> ... I used this way, when it happened to me ...
> 
> Michal
> 
> Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> > I was trying to do a emerge --update ask world and it
> kept failing on updating python-updater and it was tripping
> over the python install soo i did the 'sensible'
> thing and unemerged python. NOW I REALISE THAT PYTHON IS
> INTEGRAL TO emerge.
> > 
> > Can i fix this
> > 
> > Also, perhaps some more warnings?!? the warning
> message was the standard one.. which i ignored thinking i
> could just reinstall it immediately.
> > 
> > No joy!
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > N: Jon Hardcastle
> > E: j...@ehardcastle.com
> > 'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring
> worries of its own.'
> > 
> > Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
> > Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
> > ---
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> > 
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkoXMXwACgkQUwc9usbfIiWDVgCfZHvyfED084UHMLzIZuGWTwHG
> 3NQAnR4XBO2yhXhpzRC4Qo7ZJdjQfUf0
> =Y+KO
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

I followed this

http://blogs.pwmn.net/korkakak/2008/06/04/gentoo-i-unmerged-python-now-what

which worked - in the end. couple of caveats tho for anyone 'that follows' get 
python from their site as the ftp link in this article is out of date.

http://www.python.org/download/releases/

also I initially tried 3.01 and that didn't work so i installed 2.6.2 which 
worked 'out of the box' i then tested with 'emerge' and am now running 'emerge 
-va python' 

Cheers guys!

Thanks to Dale too!


---
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: j...@ehardcastle.com
'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'

Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
---

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Dale]

Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> I was trying to do a emerge --update ask world and it kept failing on 
> updating python-updater and it was tripping over the python install 
> soo i did the 'sensible' thing and unemerged python. NOW I REALISE THAT 
> PYTHON IS INTEGRAL TO emerge.
>
> Can i fix this
>
> Also, perhaps some more warnings?!? the warning message was the standard 
> one.. which i ignored thinking i could just reinstall it immediately.
>
> No joy!
>
>
> ---
> N: Jon Hardcastle
> E: j...@ehardcastle.com
> 'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'
>
> Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
> Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
> ---
>
>
>   
>
>
>   

Do you keep a binary copy in /usr/portage/packages/All/ by any chance? 
This is done by setting the FEATURES= in make.conf. 

If not, I think they keep a binary package on Gentoo somewhere.  There
may be other places as well. 

If all else fails and you happen to have a system that is compatible
with mine, I could send you mine.  :-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Michal Sroka]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Download python package from internet and install it manually.
Afterwards, when emerge get functional re-emerge python.

... I used this way, when it happened to me ...

Michal

Jon Hardcastle wrote:
> I was trying to do a emerge --update ask world and it kept failing on 
> updating python-updater and it was tripping over the python install 
> soo i did the 'sensible' thing and unemerged python. NOW I REALISE THAT 
> PYTHON IS INTEGRAL TO emerge.
> 
> Can i fix this
> 
> Also, perhaps some more warnings?!? the warning message was the standard 
> one.. which i ignored thinking i could just reinstall it immediately.
> 
> No joy!
> 
> 
> ---
> N: Jon Hardcastle
> E: j...@ehardcastle.com
> 'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'
> 
> Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
> Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
> ---
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkoXMXwACgkQUwc9usbfIiWDVgCfZHvyfED084UHMLzIZuGWTwHG
3NQAnR4XBO2yhXhpzRC4Qo7ZJdjQfUf0
=Y+KO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[gentoo-user] ARGH I uninstalled python

[Jon Hardcastle]

I was trying to do a emerge --update ask world and it kept failing on updating 
python-updater and it was tripping over the python install soo i did 
the 'sensible' thing and unemerged python. NOW I REALISE THAT PYTHON IS 
INTEGRAL TO emerge.

Can i fix this

Also, perhaps some more warnings?!? the warning message was the standard one.. 
which i ignored thinking i could just reinstall it immediately.

No joy!


---
N: Jon Hardcastle
E: j...@ehardcastle.com
'Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own.'

Please sponsor me for the London to Brighton 2009.
Just Giving: http://www.justgiving.com/jonathanhardcastle
---