On 11/30/10 03:24, Zac Medico wrote:
Yes, hopefully something like this will do it:
pkg_preinst() {
main_active_python=$(eselect python show)
}
pkg_postinst() {
if [[ -n $main_active_python
$main_active_python != $(eselect python show) ]] ; then
On 11/30/2010 08:26 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
* STAGE pkg_preinst (slot 2.7, version 2.7.1)
* STAGE pkg_prerm (version 2.7, slot 2.7)
* STAGE pkg_postrm (version 2.7, slot 2.7)
* STAGE pkg_postinst (slot 2.7, version 2.7.1)
Shall we give that
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:26:44 +0100
Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org wrote:
My debugging ebuild (attached) confirms a fitting order of
invocations:
Careful with that. The order of pre/post stuff is package manager and
EAPI dependent, thanks to Portage sneakily changing the order without
pkg_preinst() {
main_active_python=$(eselect python show)
}
pkg_postinst() {
if [[ -n $main_active_python
$main_active_python != $(eselect python show) ]] ; then
einfo restoring active python interpreter
eselect python set
On 11/29/10 16:47, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It wasn't any mistake. Please actually read that code:
eselect_python_update() {
if [[ -z $(eselect python show --python${PV%%.*}) ]]; then
eselect python update --python${PV%%.*}
fi
}
${PV%%.*} == 2
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
arfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
But we still upgrade from 2.7 to 2.7.1
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org writes:
2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
Sorry, but on one of my ~x86
On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org writes:
2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version
On 29/11/10 10:36, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org writes:
2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
The ebuilds you just added for 2.7.1 and 3.1.3 do contain
eselect_python_update()
On 11/29/10 10:07, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
arfre...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
But
On 11/29/10 10:30, Graham Murray wrote:
Sorry, but on one of my ~x86 systems the installation of python-2.7.1
DID update the active python version to 2.7. Worse than that, now
python-updater is running it is removing all of the
usr/lib/python-2.6/site-packages/ files and for multi-version
On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
USE_PYTHON=2.6 2.7 3.1
into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
Is that documented anywhere? I couldn't find it easily on gentoo.org in
the docs.
Paweł
signature.asc
On 11/29/10 13:24, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
USE_PYTHON=2.6 2.7 3.1
into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
Is that documented anywhere? I couldn't find it easily on
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 01:38:11PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 11/29/10 13:24, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:
On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
USE_PYTHON=2.6 2.7 3.1
into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you
On 11/29/10 1:42 PM, Markos Chandras wrote:
*sigh*, Planet is not a place to inform users about these things. How
about a -dev-announce or even better a news item.
IMHO a news item is not much better. All users who install later than
some date will not see the news item (by design).
USE_PYTHON
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 13:24:40 +0100
Paweł Hajdan, Jr. phajdan...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 11/29/10 12:45 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
Sorry to hear. Please put a line like
USE_PYTHON=2.6 2.7 3.1
into /etc/make.conf. It sounded like that's the versions you want.
Is that documented
On 11/29/10 13:42, Markos Chandras wrote:
*sigh*, Planet is not a place to inform users about these things. How
about a -dev-announce or even better a news item. Do you expect
everyone to read planet or ML? News item is such a wonderful feature. Please
please please use it.
I did not invent
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 12:43:40PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
The
2010-11-29 12:43 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
Python, so
python-2.7.1.ebuild does not upgrade active version of Python.
The ebuilds you
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:47:36PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2010-11-29 12:43 Sebastian Pipping sp...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On 11/29/10 02:35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
Sebastian Pipping recently removed automatic upgrade of active version of
On 11/29/10 16:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
users
I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
The set of files produced is the same. The new revision offers nothing
new to anyone having installed the previous revision.
On 11/29/10 16:47, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
It wasn't any mistake. Please actually read that code:
eselect_python_update() {
if [[ -z $(eselect python show --python${PV%%.*}) ]]; then
eselect python update --python${PV%%.*}
fi
}
${PV%%.*} == 2
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:20:00PM +0100, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 11/29/10 16:37, Markos Chandras wrote:
Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
users
I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
The set of files produced is the same. The new
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Alex Alexander wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 04:47:36PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
It wasn't any mistake. Please actually read that code:
eselect_python_update() {
if [[ -z $(eselect python show --python${PV%%.*}) ]]; then
eselect
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Markos Chandras wrote:
Revbump otherwise get ready for a series of bug reports from frustrated
users
I don't think this case qualifies for a revbump.
[...]
The behavior of the package has changed though. Do not expect anyone
who uses ~testing to know about eselect
On 11/29/10 17:31, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
eselect python update --python2
So unless you had updated your python-2.6 during the last two days,
the
On 11/29/2010 08:43 AM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 11/29/10 17:31, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
eselect python update --python2
So unless you had updated
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org writes:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Alex Alexander wrote:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
But as python-2.7 is installed into a new slot, python-2.6.x is kept,
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org writes:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
But python-2.7 is installed in a new slot and python-2.6.x is not
removed. So. surely python-2.6.6-r1's
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Graham Murray wrote:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
But python-2.7 is installed in a new slot and python-2.6.x is not
removed. So. surely python-2.6.6-r1's
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org writes:
But could pkg_postrm() of python-3.1.2-r4 have caused the update?
It essentially executed the following code:
Yes, that is what is doing it. I am in the middle of an emerge -uD world
and I ran 'eselect python list' after 2.7.1 had been emerged and it
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 07:36:45PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Graham Murray wrote:
I guess it is triggered from pkg_postrm() of python-2.6.6-r1 which
until two days ago unconditionally called the following eselect
action:
But python-2.7 is installed in a new
Which basically means, it's time to simplify the eclass and start thinking how
the abi details could be handled language-independent by portage.
On Monday 29 November 2010 19:54:11 Graham Murray wrote:
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org writes:
But could pkg_postrm() of python-3.1.2-r4 have
On 11/29/10 18:33, Zac Medico wrote:
You could also cancel it out, by checking the state in pkg_preinst and
saving it in an environment variable so that you can restore it in
pkg_postinst.
Could you show a mockup of that?
I'm not really sure how that would work.
Would it work for pkg_postrm
On 11/29/2010 01:14 PM, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
On 11/29/10 18:33, Zac Medico wrote:
You could also cancel it out, by checking the state in pkg_preinst and
saving it in an environment variable so that you can restore it in
pkg_postinst.
Could you show a mockup of that?
I'm not really sure
Presently in package.mask, we have this entry:
# Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org (04 Jul 2010)
# Python 2.7 masked until sufficient number of reverse dependencies is fixed.
~dev-lang/python-2.7
Well Python 2.7.1 was committed today, and does NOT match this mask, so are
2010-11-29 01:26:19 Robin H. Johnson napisał(a):
Presently in package.mask, we have this entry:
# Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org (04 Jul 2010)
# Python 2.7 masked until sufficient number of reverse dependencies is fixed.
~dev-lang/python-2.7
Well Python 2.7.1 was
38 matches
Mail list logo
