Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:20:54 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for > allowing use of sets in profile packages. > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 > Subsequent bugs from the discussion

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, William L Thomson wrote: > Stop getting lost in the weeds > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > LET ME CLARIFY > [...] SHOULD [...] PERIOD. NOTHING [...] > So PLEASE stop with that! Right. Please stop shouting in the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

I have a script I've written for my own use. It's not 100% polished, but it does the job for me. My "autodepclean" script runs "emerge --pretend --depclean", and reformats the output into another script, named "cleanscript", which contains a bunch of lines like... emerge --depclean --verbose

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 02:09:12 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work > > but checking reverse dependencies of a package takes

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:21:42 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > > Ben Kohler wrote: > >> > >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which > >> checks

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 00:24:10 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > William, I'm not sure if you're aware of how package managers work but > checking reverse dependencies of a package takes significant amount of > time. Changing -C to do that would be a serious performance > regression.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:08:54 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > > > > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It > > does not address the lack of output from either I am

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:47 -0500, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Stop getting lost in the weeds > > > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > Stop getting lost in the weeds > > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > > > > LET ME CLARIFY > > > > When using

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On pon, 2017-07-10 at 17:40 -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > Stop getting lost in the weeds > You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! > > LET ME CLARIFY > > When using -C, portage SHOULD warn for dependencies like it does for > profile and set packages,

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It does > not address the lack of output from either I am talking about. > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > I really thought I understood you in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:30:07 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 > > Rich Freeman wrote: > > > >> > >> The --unmerge option is there to let

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

Stop getting lost in the weeds You all are making this about -c vs -C. I am not talking about that! LET ME CLARIFY When using -C, portage SHOULD warn for dependencies like it does for profile and set packages, PERIOD. NOTHING to do with -c vs -C. When using -c the output should say in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly >> more complex to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks > them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly > more complex to check for. > > As far as I can tell, you are literally

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > Not sure why anyone would have objection to such a warning like exists > for other things. Or providing more information to the user as to why a > package was not removed, or should not be removed. > > -- >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:27 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> >> The --unmerge option is there to let people shoot themselves in the >> feet if they know what they're doing. > > Not sure why

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 > > Ben Kohler wrote: > >> > >> > You aren't taking the time to read your

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 > Ben Kohler wrote: >> >> > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output. > > It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:48:23 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > > > > > - The -c option should say why it will not remove. > > > > > > -- > > William L. Thomson Jr. > > > It does, if you use the --verbose flag. This is mentioned in your > emerge output a few times. It just shows

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

> > > - The -c option should say why it will not remove. > > > -- > William L. Thomson Jr. > It does, if you use the --verbose flag. This is mentioned in your emerge output a few times. -Ben

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output. It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then why even have that option? Why not default to that all the time? Why did someone give that

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:16 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > !!! 'sys-devel/gcc' is part of your system profile. > !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system. When un-merging a package from a set, You get a similar warning. I think this warning should also be

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:36 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > ... > Calculating dependencies... done! > >>> No packages selected for removal by depclean > >>> To see reverse dependencies, use --verbose > Packages installed: 1779 > Packages in world:194 > ... > #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:28:29 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > > Use -c rather than -C, like grknight suggested, and it will. It does not remove, but does not say why either. Which a user may likely proceed with using -C, as -c had no effect nor did it say why it took no action. #

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:25 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:15:35 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > > # emerge -pC tomcat-servlet-api > > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > > use > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:15:35 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > # emerge -pC tomcat-servlet-api > * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, > use > * `emerge -pv --depclean ` to check for reverse dependencies >before > * removing packages.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:07:37 -0400 Brian Evans wrote: > On 7/10/2017 2:59 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > > I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 7/10/2017 2:59 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 > "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in from > another. If you are removing any dependency of another package. > > Portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it > > happening in the first place is a lot more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it > happening in the first place is a lot more robust/bulletproof. There is nothing in place to stop you from removing gcc, or other system packages.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, Jul 09, 2017 at 09:49:08AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:24:19 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > Yes, for gcc. > > Which if someone ignores warnings, and breaks their system, it is on > them. At that point your best to remove said

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 05:24:19 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:32:09PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:27:38 -0400 > > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > > > > Though I will have to see what happens

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:29:42PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote > It is slightly more cruft than a set, but honestly not a great deal so. The only problem is that you have to maintain ebuilds in an overlay and run "repoman manifest" every time you create or edit a meta package. Here's an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 08, 2017 at 09:32:09PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:27:38 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > > > Though I will have to see what happens if a package is listed in > > > more than one set. I think there is a hierarchy there. > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 20:27:38 -0400 "Walter Dnes" wrote: > > > Though I will have to see what happens if a package is listed in > > more than one set. I think there is a hierarchy there. > > I tried "emerge -pv --unmerge @palemoon_build", and it was ready to > delete all

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Let's say I try to do this as a meta package. So in my overlay I > create a category "meta-set" and a file "meta-set/pmbuild-0.ebuild" > > EAPI=5 > SLOT="0" > KEYWORDS="amd64 x86" > DEPEND=" >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 01:07:57PM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:57:17 -0400 > Brian Evans wrote: > > > Beware of sets.. if you put toolchain packages in a set and later > > do 'emerge --unmerge @custom-set' , emerge will happily destroy > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

For anyone interested in such, I opened a feature request bug for allowing use of sets in profile packages. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=624300 P.S. Miss posted on wrong thread... thus duplicate, sorry! -- William L. Thomson Jr. pgpkQZ6BpgeJj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:43:14 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:38:31 +0100 > James Le Cuirot wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > > NP-Hardass wrote: > > > There is actually a huge functional

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 21:38:31 +0100 James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > NP-Hardass wrote: > > There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that > > you are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/07/2017 04:38 PM, James Le Cuirot wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > NP-Hardass wrote: > >> There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that you >> are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full >> dependency syntax.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that you > are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full > dependency syntax. This means you can specify versions, USE flag >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 13:31:52 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > On 07/07/2017 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > > NP-Hardass wrote: > >> > Yeah, but I'm not wild about the prospect of handling some packages >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/07/2017 01:05 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 > NP-Hardass wrote: >> >> There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that >> you are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full >> dependency

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:57:17 -0400 Brian Evans wrote: > On 7/7/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > > > I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most > > comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the > > general docs on the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:48:04 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > > There is actually a huge functional difference between the two that > you are missing here. A meta package defines its dependencies in full > dependency syntax. This means you can specify versions, USE flag >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 7/7/2017 12:57 PM, Brian Evans wrote: > On 7/7/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > >> I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most >> comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the >> general docs on the wiki. >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 7/7/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > I think sets have benefits over meta packages. This was the most > comprehensive document on sets, benefits, uses, etc. Other than the > general docs on the wiki. > https://makuro.wordpress.com/2010/12/12/intro-to-portage-sets/ > > I would

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On 07/07/2017 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of > sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a > package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think you can. I have > looked into it a bit and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 12:36:16 -0400 Lucas Ramage wrote: > Is that your blog? No it is not my blog. I do not have a blog. I have no idea about the blog owner/author. Google brought me there via some search. Not sure it was even regarding sets as I had no idea about them

Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

Is that your blog? On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 12:32 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: > I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of > sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a > package set in a profile. Or at least I do not

[gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds

I have been playing with some package sets and I like the concept of sets quite a lot. However there is one big drawback. You cannot use a package set in a profile. Or at least I do not think you can. I have looked into it a bit and does not seem like it is possible. I know I can create a meta