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
Happens in portpeek-2.1.1 as well as 2.1.6
Tried it with gentoolkit-0.3.0.7 as well as -9999.
Works when changed to =dev-libs/mpfr-3.1.1
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.
All observations made with stable portpeek-2.0.25 too, to be sure.
Can you tell me if 2.1.7 helps at all? If not, run portpeek and include d for debug
I'll try as soon as possible - just synced and it's not there yet.
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.
Created attachment 341346 [details] portpeek-rqktdn-debug.log colourless output makes more sense
The reason it is not removing the line is because mpfr-3.1.1_p2 is masked.
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
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.
(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
I hear what you are saying. Would agree that the current tilde handling makes more sense and the * should behave like that?
(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?
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.
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.
(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 ?
(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)
(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.
(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")
(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.
(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
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
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.
Added --tilde-check to help. Should clear the confusion up
