Re: [gentoo-user] bastard.sh - mass unmasker/keywords utility
On 3/22/06, Bo Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 17:20, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: > > Yeah, so? *crickets* Thanks, the d.g.o. was pretty clear, but I can > > imagine that confusing people, the referenced document was next to > > useless, did you read it? > > Well, I did have a look at it and obviously it is intended for developers > only. What I wanted people to read before installing Gnome 2.14* is this: > > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:39, Bo Andresen wrote: > > # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* > [...] > > #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them > [...] > > But maybe that's just me... ;) > heh, you specifically referenced the website, so I assumed the message on it said something to you that I missed. Be that as it may, I still say, "Yeah, so?" I also remain unclear as to what your concern is. The purpose of this is to allow you to mass-unmask files. The purpose. If you are worried about it, then you may want to read each one, etc. That said, I don't know of another utility to do anything similar. However, I have amended my web todo list with your concerns. Thanks, Joshua -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bastard.sh - mass unmasker/keywords utility
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 17:20, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: > Yeah, so? *crickets* Thanks, the d.g.o. was pretty clear, but I can > imagine that confusing people, the referenced document was next to > useless, did you read it? Well, I did have a look at it and obviously it is intended for developers only. What I wanted people to read before installing Gnome 2.14* is this: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 15:39, Bo Andresen wrote: > # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* [...] > #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them [...] But maybe that's just me... ;) -- Bo Andresen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bastard.sh - mass unmasker/keywords utility
> # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* > > These are the packages that would be merged, in order: > > Calculating dependencies > !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=gnome-2.14*" have been masked. > !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: > - gnome-base/gnome-2.14.0 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) > # John N. Laliberte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12 Mar 2006) > # GNOME 2.14 mask. You must follow instructions here: > # http://d.g.o/~allanonjl/gnome/2.13/adding.from.overlay.txt > # for adding files from our overlay. > #Most of these packages will break/not compile because of eclass > #changes that won't be made until every package is in the tree. > #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them > # Start GNOME 2.14 mask > > Did you the read comments here (d.g.o refers to dev.gentoo.org in case anyone > is wondering)? I most certainly wouldn't go ahead and unmask any package with > that kind of explanation why it was masked in the first place. What bothers > me about this, however, is not the fact that you did unmask it but rather the > fact the you leave a script here which is supposed to be able to unmask and > unkeyword any package without giving any kind of warnings about this. Yeah, so? *crickets* Thanks, the d.g.o. was pretty clear, but I can imagine that confusing people, the referenced document was next to useless, did you read it? > IMHO any script that is made public and which does what your script is doing > should print out the reason why each package it unmasks was originally masked > and perhaps even ask for confirmation. I'm not a baby sitter, and we are using Linux. However, due to your concerns I will put in a warning, and add that as a TODO on my page. Furthermore, I have no idea what concerns you really have here. Nothing will format thier FS, it may Break Their Gentoo(tm). I can imagine all sort of evil here. However, since I am only marginally assist them, if they do something stupid, it's their own fault. > Also I think it is a bit amusing that running your script without any > arguments tells me that I should include the versioned name of any package > that I want unmasked/unkeyworded. And then giving any kind of argument(s) > makes it unmask/unkeyword gnome-2.14*. Without checking the argument(s) that > I gave. I know.. it's just a minor bug. I also think (without knowing it) > that it will in fact work for most packages when that minor bug is > corrected. ;) heh, thanks, It was very late last night, and I uploaded the wrong version of the script, however, apart from the bugfix I added a warning to keep people happy. > It does, however, work for gnome-2.14.0 and it does add a LOT of lines to > package.keyword and package.mask. E.g. media-libs/gst-plugins-base adds five > lines to package.keyword i.e. version 0.10.0 to 0.10.4 on a line each. I > don't think the results will ever differ on the first two version numbers so > I think the optimal solution for this would be to just add version 0.10*. I'm > not sure that it will never differ though. Actually, that was one of my TODO items. I think that there should be two options, -L for latest and the default behaviour of more conservative to pick the earliest package and install that. Can you submit a patch? > Just for the record I am not trying to offend you here. This is supposed to be > constructive critisism. ;) Oh, I am not to worried about what other people think, and I never pictured a warning being needed. SO, hey, it was probably good for someone. Sorry for typos - babies are screaming =). Sincerley, Joshua -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] bastard.sh - mass unmasker/keywords utility
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 10:47, Joshua Schmidlkofer wrote: > So, WFM [works for me], hope it's useful to others. > > In any case, this is a resend of the script, since I got some > ambiguous 'blocked message' errors, I put it up on my website, and > left it for all: > > Secure: https://embassy.asylumware.com/projects/asylumware/wiki/bastard > Plain: http://embassy.asylumware.com/projects/asylumware/wiki/bastard # emerge -vp =gnome-2.14* These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "=gnome-2.14*" have been masked. !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request: - gnome-base/gnome-2.14.0 (masked by: package.mask, ~x86 keyword) # John N. Laliberte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12 Mar 2006) # GNOME 2.14 mask. You must follow instructions here: # http://d.g.o/~allanonjl/gnome/2.13/adding.from.overlay.txt # for adding files from our overlay. #Most of these packages will break/not compile because of eclass #changes that won't be made until every package is in the tree. #Don't unmask these and don't file bugs for them # Start GNOME 2.14 mask Did you the read comments here (d.g.o refers to dev.gentoo.org in case anyone is wondering)? I most certainly wouldn't go ahead and unmask any package with that kind of explanation why it was masked in the first place. What bothers me about this, however, is not the fact that you did unmask it but rather the fact the you leave a script here which is supposed to be able to unmask and unkeyword any package without giving any kind of warnings about this. IMHO any script that is made public and which does what your script is doing should print out the reason why each package it unmasks was originally masked and perhaps even ask for confirmation. Also I think it is a bit amusing that running your script without any arguments tells me that I should include the versioned name of any package that I want unmasked/unkeyworded. And then giving any kind of argument(s) makes it unmask/unkeyword gnome-2.14*. Without checking the argument(s) that I gave. I know.. it's just a minor bug. I also think (without knowing it) that it will in fact work for most packages when that minor bug is corrected. ;) It does, however, work for gnome-2.14.0 and it does add a LOT of lines to package.keyword and package.mask. E.g. media-libs/gst-plugins-base adds five lines to package.keyword i.e. version 0.10.0 to 0.10.4 on a line each. I don't think the results will ever differ on the first two version numbers so I think the optimal solution for this would be to just add version 0.10*. I'm not sure that it will never differ though. Just for the record I am not trying to offend you here. This is supposed to be constructive critisism. ;) -- Bo Andresen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
