Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] did python-r1 improve user experience?
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:17:59
Message-Id: 52740C5B.20802@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] did python-r1 improve user experience? by gottlieb@nyu.edu
1 On 01/11/2013 17:43, gottlieb@×××.edu wrote:
2 > On Fri, Nov 01 2013, Alan McKinnon wrote:
3 >
4 >> On 01/11/2013 15:41, gottlieb@×××.edu wrote:
5 >>> On Thu, Oct 31 2013, gottlieb@×××.edu wrote:
6 >>>
7 >>>> On Sun, Oct 27 2013, Mike Gilbert wrote:
8 >>>>
9 >>>>> Making things "just work" is complex when trying to juggle 6 or more
10 >>>>> supported versions/implementations of python.
11 >>>>
12 >>>> Indeed.
13 >>>>
14 >>>>> We have tried to explain the magic make.conf lines in the Python user guide.
15 >>>>>
16 >>>>> https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/Python/python-r1/user-guide.xml
17 >>>>>
18 >>>>> We also try to make sure that most users never have to touch
19 >>>>> PYTHON_TARGETS, etc; the default values provided by your profile are
20 >>>>> set up to allow *stable* python2.7 and python3.2 to work properly.
21 >>>>
22 >>>>> ~arch users are expected to read the docs. ^_^
23 >>>>
24 >>>> I am a ~amd64 user and I just read the user-guide. :-)
25 >>>> I do not see any action items for my system; but do see a large number
26 >>>> of reinstalls proposed by emerge
27 >>>>
28 >>>> I do not change any python variables in make.conf so emerge --info shows
29 >>>> PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7"
30 >>>> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_2"
31 >>>>
32 >>>> a recursive grep -i for python in /etc/portage yields only
33 >>>> ./package.use/imaging-pillow:5:virtual/python-imaging
34 >>>> -python_targets_python3_2
35 >>>>
36 >>>> So I basically have the default except for the imaging/pillow business.
37 >>>>
38 >>>> I note that update world wants to rebuild a bunch of packages (the
39 >>>> entire output is below). Some are qt-related others involve
40 >>>> PYTHON_TARGETS.
41 >>>>
42 >>>> Does this mean that I can let the 44 packages / 38 reinstalls update occur
43 >>>> and expect a running system to result? It is unusual, but I realize not
44 >>>> unprecedented, to have so many reinstalls and I would like to confirm
45 >>>> that this is expected.
46 >>>>
47 >>>> thanks,
48 >>>> allan
49 >>>
50 >>> I realize that I forgot to attach the list of packages emerge wants to
51 >>> reinstall. So I did the same emerge command (I always use --ask) and
52 >>> they are *gone*. This I don't understand since I didn't sync inbetween
53 >>> (ls -lt /usr/portage shows nothing since wednesday).
54 >>>
55 >>> I though all dependencies, etc are resolved locally so why would it
56 >>> change from 44 packages with 38 reinstalls to 4 packages with no
57 >>> reinstalls?
58 >>
59 >>
60 >> Did you make any changes to make.conf between your previous mail and
61 >> doing this last test?
62 >
63 > Good question, but no.
64 >
65 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 709 Sep 18 14:58 /etc/portage/make.conf
66 >
67 > allan
68 >
69
70 I think we can agree that something must have changed on your system in
71 the last few days, we just have to find it.
72
73 Otherwise we'd have to concede that portage has code like this:
74
75 if rnd(0,2)
76 do_stupid_emerge()
77 else
78 do_sensible_emerge()
79 endif
80
81 I reckon it's safe to assume portage does not contain code like that :-)
82
83 Did you run any portage commands at all that cause changes since
84 Wednesday? "emerge @preserved-rebuild" and depclean are good candidates,
85 I often forget about those myself.
86
87 How about any file at all in /etc/portage that changes since wednesday?
88 Or /var/lib/portage/world*?
89
90 --
91 Alan McKinnon
92 alan.mckinnon@×××××.com

Replies