Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:34:56 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I upgraded. So, I think, that your system is a bit odd. Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very different setups. Fourth time unlucky for me :( -- Neil Bothwick Seduced by the Chocolate side of the Force... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: While I agree that this might not have been the most clever idea they ever had, I would like to point your nose to http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time bomb in the 1.x ebuilds. -- Neil Bothwick No maintenance: Impossible to fix. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
Neil Bothwick ha scritto: On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: While I agree that this might not have been the most clever idea they ever had, I would like to point your nose to http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time bomb in the 1.x ebuilds. Err, how can it make sense? Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently) files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't had the need to modify it... No flaming intent here, but it does not make sense to me. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:55 +0200, b.n. wrote: Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time bomb in the 1.x ebuilds. Err, how can it make sense? Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently) files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't had the need to modify it... I mean it makes sense how it happens, not that it is sensible to do. It's not that you haven't modified it, in that case it doesn't matter that the 1.x default is replaced with the 2.0 default. But the way this explains the 1.x ebuild working means that if you do modify the file under 1.x, then emerge baselayout 1.x again, the modified file is considered to have been installed by portage and safe to replace with a later default, although even that logic is flawed. It's all academic now, as the bug has been uncovered and fixed, which is exactly what the testing arches are for. -- Neil Bothwick Is fire supposed to shoot out of it like that? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
Michael Schmarck schrieb: ยท Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Because you didn't read the elog messages. it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid. It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I upgraded. Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance of /etc/conf.d/net (or rather, that it was replaced with a basically blank default file). So, I think, that your system is a bit odd. Michael Schmarck http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:53 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I upgraded. Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance of /etc/conf.d/net (or rather, that it was replaced with a basically blank default file). So, I think, that your system is a bit odd. Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very different setups. -- Neil Bothwick It's not a bug, it's tradition! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb: On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that. No need for a rev bump here i guess! Anybody who runs into this will not benefit from a rev bump, as the files were gone and are not restored by the bump. Also this package is in ~arch and left package.mask recently, so it is under testing and you have to expect problems! I use openrc since it's first days in the openrc-overlay and migration went smooth! I had only problems after the transition were i was left with an unbootable system because of some bad changes in the git-repository of openrc, but this was resolvable with a live-cd. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb: On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/base lay out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3 oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that. No need for a rev bump here i guess! Anybody who runs into this will not benefit from a rev bump, as the files were gone and are not restored by the bump. yes, need for a rev bump. If one person has a problem and another person does not have the problem, it is helpfull to be able to determine the exact version of the packet installed. Not bumping revs makes that harder. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises
On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote: Also this package is in ~arch and left package.mask recently, so it is under testing and you have to expect problems! problems, yes. The nuking of important config files and non-boot: no. That is complety inacceptable for something that is not package.masked. Especially in the second case where a simple replace of a single letter could have avoided them. That the problem is known since Octobre does not make that better in any way. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
