Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: About linux-headers, making stages with catalyst

[Lluís Batlle i Rossell]

Thanks a lot for the answers.
(I answer between your lines)

On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:21:20PM -0700, Duncan wrote:
>
> OK, I know nothing about catalyst, and am just a user generally lurking on
> the dev list, but... this one's a portage question at least in part, and I
> /think/ I can answer that side of it.
>
> Virtuals, in portage, mean any single package of a group of packages (all
> with provides=<the virtual in question>) may meet the requirements.  If
> one is already installed, great, that satisfies the requirement.  If no
> such literal package fulfilling the requirement is yet installed, however,
> portage falls back to a default choice.
The default choice is specified in the virtuals, isn't it?

>
> What you have here is portage falling back to a 2.4 default choice, a 2.4
> kernel and kernel-headers, while you want 2.6 versions.  For a live
> install, you'd simply install your chosen 2.6 version which would then
> provide the virtual you needed.
>
> I'm on amd64 and as I said haven't worked with catalyst, but AFAIK, what
> you need to do there is fix the profile such that the defaults are 2.6.
> Why are you still using a 2004.2 profile for one thing?  The 2004.3
> profile, if I'm not mistaken, defaults to kernel 2.6 along with updating
> other requirements appropriately.  If you have no specific reason not to,
> I'd suggest updating to the 2004.3 profile.
Ok, I'll just try the 2004.3 profile. I thought 2004.2 had 2.6 virtuals.
---
I just tried the profile. There isn't a virtuals definition in it!
(Portage 20041108)

>
> If there's a specific reason not to do 2004.3, keep in mind that the
> profile you are using is a cascading profile (which means you should be
> using portage 2.0.51 as .50 had issues with cascading profiles).  Thus,
> the defaults from further up the tree are used if a profile itself doesn't
> over-rule them.  Dirs further /down/ the tree are NOT used, but are there
> for those who want them as a special case, therefore, the gcc34 subdir of
> your profile is a special case of the 2004.2 profile, with 2.6 being a
> special case of the gcc34 special case of the 2004.2 case of the x86 case
> of the default-linux profile.  If you wish to use that 2004.2/gcc34/2.6
> special case, you may do so, and it should change your requirements
> accordingly.

I'm using portage 2.0.51-r4. I didn't know how cascade profiles work... I
imagined that they worked that way similar...

>
> If that still doesn't fit your rather customized case, then simply
> customize the requirements.  Again, using cascading profiles, virtuals
> from up the tree are used if nothing in the current profile dir overrides
> them.  Thus, the virtuals file in x86 says use gentoo-sources (a 2.4
> kernel) as the default virtual/linux-sources, while it falls back up to
> default-linux to get the default for virtual/os-headers,
> sys-kernel/linux-headers (kernel 2.4 headers).

Are you talking about using the profile "portage/profiles/default-linux" instead
of "portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2004.2" ?
In which case is "portage/profiles/default-linux/virtuals" read? Will that file
be read, if I have the profile 2004.3 or 2004.2? And what about the
portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/virtuals?

>
> Forcing 2.6 kernel and headers means placing a virtuals file in the
> current profile, overriding those up the tree from it, with the defaults
> you want, probably the same ones as in x86/2004.3, or in
> x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6, for those items.
Hummm I think _now_ I understand the problem. I read the virtuals file in
x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6, and there was 2.6 virtuals. So, I thought that the
x86/2004.2 profile had 2.6 virtuals. I thought that the cascade was going down
to directories, and not up! I thought that that was strange... :)

>
> Because I've never used catalyst, I'm not sure where you put edits to its
> profile.  I assume you put them in the stage1root you mentioned, but
> that's just a guess.  Read the documentation, or do a bit of experimenting.

Aha. I was in confusion with the 'direction' of the cascade, so I thought 2004.2
had virtuals.

What I've tried, while answering this email:
I've tried using 2004.3 => Still keeps on using 2.4 (there are no virtual
definitions in 2004.3!)
I've tried using default-linux/x86/2004.2/gcc34/2.6/ as profile => Even this way
emerge still keeps on using 2.4
I've tried changing the content of the virtuals in default-linux and
default-linux/x86 => YES! Now it installs 2.6 headers.

But... Shouldn't the other tries work ??? At least, you say that about 2004.3,
and the profile ....gcc34/2.6/ seems to have virtuals defined there.

Thanks!

--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list