Maybe I'm misinterpreting what portpeek should do, but it does not remove entries from my package.keywords when the last unmasked version coincides with the stable one. For instance, app-portage/portpeek itself!! === ~ $ eix -I portpeek [I] app-portage/portpeek Available versions: 1.5.7 (~)1.5.7-r1 (~)1.5.7.1 (~)1.5.7.1-r1 1.5.7.2 [M](~)1.6.5 [M](~)1.6.7 [M](~)1.7.0 Installed versions: 1.5.7.2(10:16:31 23/02/09) Homepage: http://www.mpagano.com/blog/?page_id=3 Description: A helper program for maintaining the package.keyword and package.unmask files ~ $ cat /etc/portage/package.keywords | grep portpeek app-portage/portpeek ~ $ sudo portpeek -arf package.keywords: package.unmask: package.mask: x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-180.41: Package Masked media-gfx/digikam-0.10.0: Package Masked media-plugins/kipi-plugins-0.2.0-r1: Package Masked Done ~ $ cat /etc/portage/package.keywords | grep portpeek app-portage/portpeek === Shouldn't app-portage/portpeek, in my example, be removed from package.keywords? If I remove the entry myself and update my system, portage does not want to change the installed version. What is the purpose of portpeek if I'm forced to remove the entries manually? Reproducible: Always
It only looks at specific versions. If you put =app-portage/portpeek-1.5.7.2 in package.keywords it will recognize that it's stable and remove it. The intention was never to make assumptions on non versioned packages due to the face when someone doesn't put a version in, they usually want to stay up to date will all unstable versions of a package no matter what. I'm wondering if there is a desire for an option to include non-versioned cat/packages in the checks and removals ?
(In reply to comment #1) > The intention was never to make assumptions on non versioned packages due to > the face when someone doesn't put a version in, they usually want to stay up to > date will all unstable versions of a package no matter what. That's not always the case. In my case, almost all the entries in package.keywords are dependencies for certain ~packages wich need a minimal version number. It is much easier to just ommit this version and let the ~package decide. In the past I used the excellent 'etcportclean' script, but unfortunately it does not work anymore with current portage versions. > I'm wondering if there is a desire for an option to include non-versioned > cat/packages in the checks and removals ? Yes, please. If the most recent ~version of a package gets stabilized, there's no need for it to be present in package.keywords when you want to mantain a mostly stable system. Thanks in advance.
urcindalo, Are you willing to test a new version with tilde support for me? After backing up all files in /etc/portage, fo course. :)
(In reply to comment #3) > urcindalo, > > Are you willing to test a new version with tilde support for me? > After backing up all files in /etc/portage, fo course. :) Sure :D The more portpeek resembles etcportclean, the better for me ;)
Created attachment 190453 [details] portpeek-1.8.0 ebuild ebuild for anyone who can test tilde functionality. portpeek -art to include tilde check
Thanks for your ebuild Mike. However, as I said in my previous posts, I use a mostly stable system. As such, I don't want to mess with portage, which means I want to keep my stable sys-apps/portage-2.1.6.11. Is it possible to make your ebuild portage-2.1.6.11 compatible?
implemented in portpeek-1.5.8.4
