Summary: | portage / xorg-x11: doesn't work very well | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | molle.bestefich |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux bug wranglers <bug-wranglers> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | anakin.skyw |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
output from 'emerge -uDvpt world'
FYI - package.keywords |
Description
molle.bestefich
2006-04-13 12:01:50 UTC
><... snip ...>
You snipped the interesting part...
(In reply to comment #1) > ><... snip ...> > > You snipped the interesting part... > Yeah, exactly... Reopen once you find the offending ebuild. That was the point of the whole thing - the interesting part is not there. After the snip there's just a bunch of totally unrelated packages with U and a couple of N signs next to them. What did you expect to find there? I'll post the rest when I get near the box again, but there's really nothing interesting. (Hrm, on an unrelated note, out of curiosity, why are you setting the bug to RESOLVED when it's clearly not? Are you guys, how should I put it, abusing bugzilla to make it do something specific, or?) (In reply to comment #3) > That was the point of the whole thing - the interesting part is not there. > After the snip there's just a bunch of totally unrelated packages with U and a > couple of N signs next to them. > What did you expect to find there? The ebuild that's not ported for modular X and so pulls in monolithic xorg. > (Hrm, on an unrelated note, out of curiosity, why are you setting the bug to > RESOLVED when it's clearly not? Are you guys, how should I put it, abusing > bugzilla to make it do something specific, or?) On an unrelated note, what's so unclear about NEEDINFO? http://bugs.gentoo.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#resolution On a related note, we are not so much interested in reading long novels about sucky experience and more interested to see the unported ebuild identified. Reopen once you've identified it. > Why would it even want to start downgrading xorg, now that I specifically ask it > to keep up to a certain version in /etc/portage/package.keywords:
> =x11-base/xorg-x11-7.0-r1
That's not how package.keywords works at all, it doesn't keep up to any version, it only says to portage which keyword are you willing to accept for a given atom.
Also, post your emerge info and attach (don't paste) /etc/portage/package.keywords file.
> On an unrelated note, what's so unclear about NEEDINFO? Nobody mentioned NEEDINFO being unclear, what are you talking about? RESOLVED seems wrong, since the issue has not been resolved. > it only says to portage which keyword are > you willing to accept for a given atom. Ok, but I wasn't trying to start an argument about the precise inner workings of Portage. I was arguing that Portage is trying to downgrade a package to 6.8 when it has earlier been specifically told that I want 7.0-unstable, or any later stable version, which is what the line I mentioned effectively does. That behavior is not exactly very bright. And if Portage aims to be just a little bit bright about what it does, it would even constitute a bug :-). I'll add the rest of "emerge -D world" later (although I still can't see why it's not totally irrelevant, hmm). (In reply to comment #6) > > On an unrelated note, what's so unclear about NEEDINFO? > > Nobody mentioned NEEDINFO being unclear, what are you talking about? > > RESOLVED seems wrong, since the issue has not been resolved. NEEDINFO is a resolution, that's how bugzilla works. > I'll add the rest of "emerge -D world" later (although I still can't see why > it's not totally irrelevant, hmm). Better make that emerge -uDpvt world. Created attachment 84621 [details]
output from 'emerge -uDvpt world'
Okey dokey, here's the output of 'emerge -uDvpt world'.
You seem to be missing virtual/x11 in your package.keywords. Ok, thanks. I was of the impression that modular X does not use virtual/x11 anymore. If you don't mind helping me out a bit more, what's the exact line I need? Created attachment 84622 [details]
FYI - package.keywords
I couldn't find a way to tell Portage "Go ahead and merge xorg7 even though it's ~x86, and also go ahead and merge any ~x86 dependencies that it has", so I had to make a script to add do that. The script-generated entries are the ones listed at the end of the file.
> You seem to be missing virtual/x11 in your package.keywords.
Oh, and btw, HOW on EARTH did you figure that out from the emerge -D output??!
Our modular X howto (http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml) has a nice list of packages to put into package.keywords ;) http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-packages.txt > Our modular X howto has a nice list of packages to put into package.keywords ;) It's lame having to put all that crap in there just to tell Portage "please use version 7 of xorg". > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml There's a bug in that too: dev-python/pycrypto is missing from the list. Please, don't reopen this bug, there's no bug here. It's how keywords work, period. Closed. No no, you've misunderstood me. The bug is that dev-python/pycrypto is missing from the package list you referred to. http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/x/x11/modular-x-howto.xml I still think there's a Portage usability bug as mentioned earlier (you haven't commented anything on it), but that part I'll take to the mailing lists. (In reply to comment #17) > No no, you've misunderstood me. No, not really, pycrypto has zero in common with modular X. Finally, you are free to put ~x86 or whatever other arch you are using to ACCEPT_KEYWORDS in make.conf and avoid all of this. |