Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 457968 - app-portage/portpeek overlooks some(?) package atom(s)
Summary: app-portage/portpeek overlooks some(?) package atom(s)
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Third-Party Tools (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: Mike Pagano
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2013-02-17 13:51 UTC by Andreas Sturmlechner
Modified: 2019-09-25 05:10 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
portpeek-rqktd-debug.log (portpeek-debug-130308.log,178.63 KB, text/plain)
2013-03-08 21:47 UTC, Andreas Sturmlechner
Details
portpeek-rqktdn-debug.log (portpeek-debug-130308-n.log,130.99 KB, text/plain)
2013-03-08 22:11 UTC, Andreas Sturmlechner
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 13:51:38 UTC
While manually scanning through my stabletransition package.keywords list, looking for packages to raise stable requests, I found that 

~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1

despite having no masked versions, is not mentioned in portpeek output:

$ eshowkw mpfr
Keywords for dev-libs/mpfr:
            |                           | u   |  
            | a a             p     s   | n   |  
            | l m   h i m m   p s   p   | u s | r
            | p d a p a 6 i p c 3   a x | s l | e
            | h 6 r p 6 8 p p 6 9 s r 8 | e o | p
            | a 4 m a 4 k s c 4 0 h c 6 | d t | o
------------+---------------------------+-----+-------
2.4.2_p3    | + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + | # 0 | gentoo
------------+---------------------------+-----+-------
2.4.2_p3-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | # 1 | gentoo
------------+---------------------------+-----+-------
3.0.0_p3    | + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + | # 0 | gentoo
   3.0.1    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
3.0.1_p4    | + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + | #   | gentoo
3.0.1_p4-r1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   3.1.0    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
3.1.0_p7    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | o   | gentoo
[I]3.1.1    | + + + + + + ~ + + + + + + | o   | gentoo
3.1.1_p2    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | o   | gentoo


The relevant lines in portpeek -rkqtd output:

Analyzing line: ~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
check_tilde_maskd_pkg: orig_package-name is ~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
check_tilde_maskd_pkg: package_name is dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
check_tilde_maskd_pkg: current_package is dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
comparing dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1 to dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
is_pkg_package_masked called: dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
check_tilde_maskd_pkg: current_package is dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1_p2
comparing dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1 to dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1_p2
is_pkg_package_masked called: dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1_p2
Comment 1 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 13:59:59 UTC
Happens in portpeek-2.1.1 as well as 2.1.6
Comment 2 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 15:02:30 UTC
Tried it with gentoolkit-0.3.0.7 as well as -9999.
Comment 3 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 15:27:09 UTC
Works when changed to =dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
Comment 4 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 15:52:27 UTC
Might be related with

~dev-libs/libsigc++-2.2.11
~x11-libs/gtk+-2.24.13

being detected as 'Not installed'? Still opened a new bug because on the contrary, mpfr is ignored.
Comment 5 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-02-17 17:03:04 UTC
All observations made with stable portpeek-2.0.25 too, to be sure.
Comment 6 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2013-03-08 20:08:57 UTC
Can you tell me if 2.1.7 helps at all?

If not, run portpeek and include d for debug
Comment 7 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-03-08 20:34:51 UTC
I'll try as soon as possible - just synced and it's not there yet.
Comment 8 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-03-08 21:47:36 UTC
Created attachment 341338 [details]
portpeek-rqktd-debug.log

portpeek-2.1.7 test-run over my diminished stabletransition file. same observations as above, mpfr is still there for reference.
Comment 9 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-03-08 22:11:46 UTC
Created attachment 341346 [details]
portpeek-rqktdn-debug.log

colourless output makes more sense
Comment 10 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2013-03-08 23:39:30 UTC
The reason it is not removing the line is because mpfr-3.1.1_p2 is masked.
Comment 11 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-05-18 16:32:39 UTC
Same there:

$ portpeek -rkt
[...]
$ grep ppl /etc/portage/package.keywords/stabletransition

~dev-libs/ppl-0.12.1


While:

Keywords for dev-libs/ppl:
             |                           | u   |  
             | a a             p     s   | n   |  
             | l m   h i m m   p s   p   | u s | r
             | p d a p a 6 i p c 3   a x | s l | e
             | h 6 r p 6 8 p p 6 9 s r 8 | e o | p
             | a 4 m a 4 k s c 4 0 h c 6 | d t | o
-------------+---------------------------+-----+-------
   0.10.2-r1 | + + + + + o ~ + + + + + + | # 0 | gentoo
   0.11.2-r1 | + + + + + o ~ + + + + + + | o   | gentoo
     0.12    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
   0.12.1    | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ | #   | gentoo
[I]0.12.1-r1 | ~ + + ~ + o ~ + + ~ ~ ~ + | o   | gentoo
Comment 12 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2013-06-11 16:56:25 UTC
What would you expect to see here? 

If you have ~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1, you are looking to to unmask version of mpfr like ~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.10-r1 if they ever are added.

You would not want portpeek to remove that, even if -r1 does not exist. The idea of tilde is that it unmasks the latest.
Comment 13 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-06-11 22:09:38 UTC
(In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #12)
> What would you expect to see here?

I had assumed portpeek to treat these two lines equally:

=dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1*
~dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
Comment 14 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2013-06-13 00:42:02 UTC
I hear what you are saying. Would agree that the current tilde handling makes more sense and the * should behave like that?
Comment 15 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2013-06-14 00:16:54 UTC
(In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #14)
> I hear what you are saying. Would agree that the current tilde handling
> makes more sense and the * should behave like that?


That was horrible grammar.  Which handling makes more sense to you, how * is handled or how ~ is handled?
Comment 16 Andreas Sturmlechner gentoo-dev 2013-06-23 16:01:23 UTC
The way I am currently using portpeek, I would like to have the * behaviour, but I get it that how ~ is handled also makes sense.

Ideally we could have both with a new switch:
-r (current ~ behaviour, 'show obsolete matches that can be removed from package files')
-R (current * behaviour, 'show any matches that can be removed from package files)


Sorry for the delayed response.
Comment 17 Franz Trischberger 2019-09-10 08:04:58 UTC
I also have issues with "~" unmasked packages.
portpeek-2.1.27.

Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['~amd64'] : /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf

Remove entries from files [y/n] y
Done

portpeek -kq  10,56s user 0,18s system 75% cpu 14,270 total
[10:54] # cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0

portpeek asks me if I want to remove the line, I say "yes", but the line remains.
Comment 18 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2019-09-18 14:22:36 UTC
(In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #17)
> I also have issues with "~" unmasked packages.
> portpeek-2.1.27.
> 
> Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['~amd64'] :
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> 
> Remove entries from files [y/n] y
> Done
> 
> portpeek -kq  10,56s user 0,18s system 75% cpu 14,270 total
> [10:54] # cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0
> 
> portpeek asks me if I want to remove the line, I say "yes", but the line
> remains.

is libva-2.5.0 installed or is the -r1 installed ?
Comment 19 Franz Trischberger 2019-09-18 15:04:11 UTC
(In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #18)
> (In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #17)
> > I also have issues with "~" unmasked packages.
> > portpeek-2.1.27.
> > 
> > Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['~amd64'] :
> > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> > 
> > Remove entries from files [y/n] y
> > Done
> > 
> > portpeek -kq  10,56s user 0,18s system 75% cpu 14,270 total
> > [10:54] # cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> > ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0
> > 
> > portpeek asks me if I want to remove the line, I say "yes", but the line
> > remains.
> 
> is libva-2.5.0 installed or is the -r1 installed ?

There is no 2.5.0, just the 2.5.0-r1.
Available versions:  1.7.3 ~1.8.3 ~2.4.1-r1(0/2) 2.5.0-r1(0/2) **9999(0/9999)
Comment 20 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2019-09-18 19:46:13 UTC
(In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #19)
> (In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #18)
> > (In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #17)
> > > I also have issues with "~" unmasked packages.
> > > portpeek-2.1.27.
> > > 
> > > Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['~amd64'] :
> > > /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> > > 
> > > Remove entries from files [y/n] y
> > > Done
> > > 
> > > portpeek -kq  10,56s user 0,18s system 75% cpu 14,270 total
> > > [10:54] # cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> > > ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0
> > > 
> > > portpeek asks me if I want to remove the line, I say "yes", but the line
> > > remains.
> > 
> > is libva-2.5.0 installed or is the -r1 installed ?
> 
> There is no 2.5.0, just the 2.5.0-r1.
> Available versions:  1.7.3 ~1.8.3 ~2.4.1-r1(0/2) 2.5.0-r1(0/2) **9999(0/9999)

You can still have packages installed that are not in portage...

2.5.0-r1 is stable, so I guess your output is old.

Let me know if you see a current use-case.  As I can't reproduce.
Comment 21 Franz Trischberger 2019-09-19 04:24:37 UTC
(In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #20)
> You can still have packages installed that are not in portage...

I wouldn't have reported here if that was the case.
 
> 2.5.0-r1 is stable, so I guess your output is old.

No, it isn't:
# portpeek -kq
                                                                                                                       
package.keywords:                                                                                                       
Could not find file /etc/portage/package.keywords                                                                       
No ebuild options found.                                                                                                
Done 
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
package.accept_keywords:
                                                                                                                      
Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['amd64'] : /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf

Remove entries from files [y/n] y
Done

# cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0

# eix -e --nocolor libva
[I] x11-libs/libva
     Available versions:  1.7.3 ~1.8.3 ~2.4.1-r1(0/2) 2.5.0-r1(0/2) **9999(0/9999)*l {X +drm egl opengl utils vdpau wayland ABI_MIPS="n32 n64 o32" ABI_RISCV="lp64 lp64d" ABI_S390="32 64" ABI_X86="32 64 x32" VIDEO_CARDS="dummy i965 intel nouveau nvidia"}
     Installed versions:  2.5.0-r1(0/2)(09:28:32 07.09.2019)(X drm opengl wayland -utils -vdpau ABI_MIPS="-n32 -n64 -o32" ABI_RISCV="-lp64 -lp64d" ABI_S390="-32 -64" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" VIDEO_CARDS="-i965 -intel -nouveau -nvidia")

# eix -e --nocolor portpeek
[I] app-portage/portpeek
     Available versions:  2.1.27 {PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_5 python3_6 python3_7"}
     Installed versions:  2.1.27(17:29:32 24.05.2019)(PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_6 -python3_5 -python3_7")
Comment 22 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2019-09-23 23:01:44 UTC
(In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #21)
> (In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #20)
> > You can still have packages installed that are not in portage...
> 
> I wouldn't have reported here if that was the case.
>  
> > 2.5.0-r1 is stable, so I guess your output is old.
> 
> No, it isn't:
> # portpeek -kq
>                                                                             

Yes,it is for amd64, arm64 x86

$ grep KEYWORD libva-2.5.0-r1.ebuild 
KEYWORDS="amd64 arm64 x86 ~amd64-linux ~x86-linux"


> package.keywords:                                                           
> 
> Could not find file /etc/portage/package.keywords                           
> 
> No ebuild options found.                                                    
> 
> Done 
>                                                                             
> 
>                                                                             
> 
> package.accept_keywords:
>                                                                             
> 
> Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['amd64'] :
> /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> 
> Remove entries from files [y/n] y
> Done
> 
> # cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf
> ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0



> 
> # eix -e --nocolor libva
> [I] x11-libs/libva
>      Available versions:  1.7.3 ~1.8.3 ~2.4.1-r1(0/2) 2.5.0-r1(0/2)
> **9999(0/9999)*l {X +drm egl opengl utils vdpau wayland ABI_MIPS="n32 n64
> o32" ABI_RISCV="lp64 lp64d" ABI_S390="32 64" ABI_X86="32 64 x32"
> VIDEO_CARDS="dummy i965 intel nouveau nvidia"}
>      Installed versions:  2.5.0-r1(0/2)(09:28:32 07.09.2019)(X drm opengl
> wayland -utils -vdpau ABI_MIPS="-n32 -n64 -o32" ABI_RISCV="-lp64 -lp64d"
> ABI_S390="-32 -64" ABI_X86="64 -32 -x32" VIDEO_CARDS="-i965 -intel -nouveau
> -nvidia")
> 
> # eix -e --nocolor portpeek
> [I] app-portage/portpeek
>      Available versions:  2.1.27 {PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_5
> python3_6 python3_7"}
>      Installed versions:  2.1.27(17:29:32
> 24.05.2019)(PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_6 -python3_5 -python3_7")

Maybe you can try eix.  It has some of the same features and might be a better fit for you.
Comment 23 Franz Trischberger 2019-09-24 04:24:18 UTC
(In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #22)
> (In reply to Franz Trischberger from comment #21)
> > (In reply to Mike Pagano from comment #20)
> > > You can still have packages installed that are not in portage...
> > 
> > I wouldn't have reported here if that was the case.
> >  
> > > 2.5.0-r1 is stable, so I guess your output is old.
> > 
> > No, it isn't:
> > # portpeek -kq
> >                                                                             
> 
> Yes,it is for amd64, arm64 x86

"No, it (the output) isn't old" is what I wanted to say, and then posted a current run from portpeek. Of course 2.5.0-r1 is stable for me (amd64 - look at the eix output), that's why I want to remove the line from the config file.
I am currently transitioning from mixed-testing/stable to stable. And libva pops up every time I run portpeek (after a full cycle of emerge -uDN @world, emerge --depclean, revdep-rebuild).

And to just say it clearly again:
output of portpeek:

Installed: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0  Keywords ['amd64'] : /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf

It says (to me) that line matches a package that is installed from stable ('amd64'). It later asks me if it should be removed, I say "yes", portpeek does nothing. To me that's a bug.

Btw.: Now 2.5.0-r1 is the ONLY version available version (besides -9999), but still portpeek does not remove that line from /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/x11-libs.conf

Keywords for x11-libs/libva:
            |                               a   |            |  
            |                               m   |            |  
            |                               d x |            |  
            |                               6 8 |            |  
            |                               4 6 |   u        |  
            | a a   a     p           s r   | | |   n        |  
            | l m   r i   p   h m s   p i m f f | e u s      | r
            | p d a m a p c x p 6 3   a s i b b | a s l      | e
            | h 6 r 6 6 p 6 8 p 8 9 s r c p s s | p e o      | p
            | a 4 m 4 4 c 4 6 a k 0 h c v s d d | i d t      | o
------------+-----------------------------------+------------+-------
[I]2.5.0-r1 | o + o + o o o + o o o o o o o o o | 7 o 0/2    | gentoo
------------+-----------------------------------+------------+-------
    9999    | o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o | 7 o 0/9999 | gentoo
Comment 24 Mike Pagano gentoo-dev 2019-09-24 22:52:55 UTC
You need the tilde indicator to have it removed.
Because you have a tilde in the line.

 # eix -e libva
[I] x11-libs/libva
     Available versions:  2.5.0-r1(0/2) **9999(0/9999)*l {X +drm opengl utils vdpau wayland ABI_MIPS="n32 n64 o32" ABI_RISCV="lp64 lp64d" ABI_S390="32 64" ABI_X86="32 64 x32" VIDEO_CARDS="i965 intel nouveau nvidia"}
     Installed versions:  2.5.0-r1(0/2)(10:01:16 AM 08/15/2019)(X drm -opengl -utils -vdpau -wayland ABI_MIPS="-n32 -n64 -o32" ABI_RISCV="-lp64 -lp64d" ABI_S390="-32 -64" ABI_X86="32 64 -x32" VIDEO_CARDS="nouveau -i965 -intel -nvidia"

# cat /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/test.conf 
~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0 


# portpeek -artq


package.accept_keywords:
x11-libs/libva-2.5.0-r1 has no masked versions : /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/test.conf

Remove entries from files [y/n] y

Removing from: /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords/test.conf: ~x11-libs/libva-2.5.0-r1

Done

# cat test.conf
Comment 25 Franz Trischberger 2019-09-25 05:10:35 UTC
OK, thank you. Now it cleared my configs.
The issue is that "-t" isn't mentioned in "portpeek --help" so I just wasn't aware of its existance.
Also without "-t" IMO portpeek shouldn't pretend doing something: "portpeek -kq" doesn't quit as if there were no changes required but it 1) prints the match and 2) asks if I want to remove the lines. That's what was confusing me so much.