| 1 |
On 8/3/21 7:37 AM, cal wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 8/2/21 10:26 PM, n952162 wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 8/3/21 7:20 AM, n952162 wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 8/2/21 10:10 PM, David Haller wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> Hello, |
| 6 |
>>>> |
| 7 |
>>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2021, n952162 wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy |
| 9 |
>>>>> "dev-python/isodate[python_targets_python3_8(-)?,python_targets_python3_9(-)?]" |
| 10 |
>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>> have been masked. |
| 12 |
>>>>> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your |
| 13 |
>>>>> request: |
| 14 |
>>>>> - dev-python/isodate-0.6.0-r2::gentoo (masked by: EAPI 8) |
| 15 |
>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>> The current version of portage supports EAPI '7'. You must upgrade to a |
| 17 |
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| 18 |
>>>>> newer version of portage before EAPI masked packages can be installed. |
| 19 |
>>>> You should read a bit more carefully... It seems your sys-apps/portage |
| 20 |
>>>> is a bit dated. |
| 21 |
>>>> |
| 22 |
>>>> Upgrade sys-apps/portage first, then it should work. |
| 23 |
>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>> HTH, |
| 25 |
>>>> -dnh |
| 26 |
>>> |
| 27 |
>>> I read that, but I last updated 2 months ago. So, this update breaks |
| 28 |
>>> because portage was updated and new ebuilds using that are already |
| 29 |
>>> being pushed out? Seems strict to me ... but /isodate/ being the only |
| 30 |
>>> one? I still have a EAPI 4 on my system (1). Plenty of EAPI 5. Was |
| 31 |
>>> there something in isodate that needed to be urgently updated - |
| 32 |
>>> utilizing the the cutting edge EAPI? |
| 33 |
>>> |
| 34 |
>> We just had to update portage not so long ago. I admittedly presumed at |
| 35 |
>> first that something else must be wrong, because it didn't occur to me |
| 36 |
>> that portage would be so volatile. |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> Everything in gentoo is so nicely configurable, but I think another |
| 39 |
>> dimension should be add: configurable volatility - i.e. a configurable |
| 40 |
>> hysteresis for upstream updates. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
> It sounds like you would be more satisfied with a distribution that has |
| 45 |
> releases. You are fighting a losing battle to use a rolling-release |
| 46 |
> distribution on a machine you intend to update infrequently. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> Keeping old software working in a rolling release ecosystem is a pain, |
| 49 |
> doubly so if you have to maintain the newer version in parallel. What |
| 50 |
> you ask for is more difficult than you think. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Well, what you say is likely true, but does "old software" really need |
| 54 |
to be kept working? Couldn't problems necessarily only be dealt with |
| 55 |
in the newest versions? |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Yes, a release distribution would be one end of the configuration |
| 58 |
spectrum I'm thinking of. That works for other distibutions. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
My problem is, I want a source distribution. Maybe there's something |
| 61 |
about source distributions that dictates a rolling strategy? I don't |
| 62 |
see it, but it might be there. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
I've raised this issue before and someone mentioned a derivative of |
| 65 |
gentoo, which sounds promising, but I'm not convinced by that one |
| 66 |
implementation. |
Archives