Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
On Friday 27 June 2014 08:16:08 Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote: > > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy > > "virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]" > > have been masked. > > You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the > ruby18 RUBY_TARGET. It's not immediately clear which package that is from > the output, but I suspect dev-ruby/rubygems? Re-emerging the packages > still installed for ruby18 should fix this. Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box at all. A little poking around revealed that the only thing that needed it was thin- provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE flags and recompiled lvm2 I could get rid of ruby altogether. This won't suit everybody, I know, but maybe it's worth considering. -- Regards Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014, Hans de Graaff wrote: On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote: !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]" have been masked. You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the ruby18 RUBY_TARGET. It's not immediately clear which package that is from the output, but I suspect dev-ruby/rubygems? Re-emerging the packages still installed for ruby18 should fix this. I rebuiltd rubygems and the virtual but still no go. Then I rebuilt rdoc (which pulled in a bunch of other stuff) but now emerge world says I have nothing left to build. Hopefully I can revdep-rebuild and all should be OK. Thanks, -- A
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Friday 27 June 2014 08:16:08 Hans de Graaff wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 23:36:00 -0400, Ajai Khattri wrote: > > > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy > > > "virtual/rubygems[ruby_targets_ruby18]" > > > have been masked. > > > > You still have packages on your system that have been installed with the > > ruby18 RUBY_TARGET. It's not immediately clear which package that is from > > the output, but I suspect dev-ruby/rubygems? Re-emerging the packages > > still installed for ruby18 should fix this. > > Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box at all. A > little poking around revealed that the only thing that needed it was thin- > provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE flags and recompiled lvm2 I > could > get rid of ruby altogether. > > This won't suit everybody, I know, but maybe it's worth considering. What exactly does this do -- is it for a thin client or something? -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:39:29 -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box > > at all. A little poking around revealed that the only thing that > > needed it was thin- provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE > > flags and recompiled lvm2 I could get rid of ruby altogether. > > > > This won't suit everybody, I know, but maybe it's worth considering. > > What exactly does this do -- is it for a thin client or something? No, it's an LVM feature. It's one of those "if you don't know what it is you don't need it" type features so I don't understand whey it is enabled by default in the ebuild. Thin volumes in LVM use only the space they need, so the space you allocate to them, so you can create volumes with a total size greater than the available disk space. -- Neil Bothwick The people who are wrapped up in themselves are overdressed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
On Friday 27 June 2014 21:58:23 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:39:29 -0400, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > > Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box > > > at all. A little poking around revealed that the only thing that > > > needed it was thin- provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE > > > flags and recompiled lvm2 I could get rid of ruby altogether. > > > > > > This won't suit everybody, I know, but maybe it's worth considering. > > > > What exactly does this do -- is it for a thin client or something? > > No, it's an LVM feature. It's one of those "if you don't know what it is > you don't need it" type features so I don't understand whey it is enabled > by default in the ebuild. It's a daft name, too, IMO. "Over-commit" would be better. > Thin volumes in LVM use only the space they need, so the space you > allocate to them, so you can create volumes with a total size greater > than the available disk space. ...and although I dare say some installations may need it, and know how to manage the risk, I certainly don't want to wake up one day to find I've overflowed my partitions, so I ditched it as soon as I found it. Enough things go bump in the night as it is, without adding to them needlessly. Result: ruby-coloured peace. It's even worse than you said, Neil; on this ordinary KDE box* with 943 packages installed, thin-provisioning in lvm2 is the only thing that needs ruby. So not only is it a "you don't need it" feature, it brings in layers of complexity and head-scratching for ordinary mortals, quite out of proportion to the "benefits". * Well, ordinary apart from using two disks in software RAID-1 and LVM, that is. -- Regards Peter
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ruby is borked on my system
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 12:39 PM, wrote: > Peter Humphrey wrote: >> >> Some months ago I found myself wondering why I had ruby on this box at all. A >> little poking around revealed that the only thing that needed it was thin- >> provisioning. Once I'd added -thin to my USE flags and recompiled lvm2 I >> could >> get rid of ruby altogether. >> >> This won't suit everybody, I know, but maybe it's worth considering. > > What exactly does this do -- is it for a thin client or something? http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/LVM#Thin_provisioning
