Weird portage behavior

[darkscreamer]

This morning i did

[AllenJB]

Check the changelog (${PORTDIR}/category/package-name/Changelog). It tells you that portage 2.2 has been package.masked to allow for testing of the newly released 1.6 (which is basically portage 2.2 minus sets and preserve-libs).

If you need to continue using portage 2.2 because you're already using sets, simply unmask it in the normal way using package.unmask.

[darkscreamer]

I just needed EAPI 2 for compiz-fusion svn. I guess it should be safe to downgrade to 2.1.6. Thanks for the assistance.

[audiodef]

Just wanted to say it would be nice if the programmers could add better messages for things like this - such as how to keep ~arch versions of Portage despite the mandated downgrade. Or even better, not mandating the downgrade, but having emerge spit out a message asking for voluntary downgrades and testing.

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-716008-highlight-.html is solved. Wanted to add my comment there, but didn't know I was duplicating another thread.
_________________
decibel Linux: https://decibellinux.org
Github: https://github.com/Gentoo-Music-and-Audio-Technology
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/decibellinux
Discord: https://discord.gg/73XV24dNPN

[foolosophy]

Why are sets being removed from ~arch? I can easily do without them for now, but they seemed like a nice feature.


EDIT: Oh, the changelog says that sets are still "unstable". I guess that they're planning to add them later on, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[VoidMage]

No, it's seems that's it's simply main portage dev done the hindsight thing:
in hindsight, it would have been good to KEEP portage 2.2 rc's masked while there
were 2.1 versions still in unstable, so those versions still get some testing.

Yes, that would be a good idea - IN HINDSIGHT.
The way it was done.. Well, I think it annoyed many people.

(and I really like sets, especially @installed)

[ArneBab]

I really like the features of 2.2, so I'll stay a 2.2 tester

It works quite stable for me, and I don't want to miss the sets, now that I reconfigured my installation to use them.
_________________
Being unpolitical means being political without realizing it. - Arne Babenhauserheide ( http://draketo.de )

pkgcore: So fast that it feels unreal - by doing only what is needed.

[poly_poly-man]

um, it really, really sucks that my nightly build stuff has not worked at all the last few nights... at first it complained that I couldn't do both system and world in the same command, then, after I changed it, that @world wasn't a real package atom, etc.

Took me a while to realize that I wasn't on 2.2 anymore...

Can we PLEASE warn people before we do something like this? How about NOT doing something like this? There's a reason there's ~arch... for testing, such as portage 2.2. Let the regulars be guinea pigs for 2.1.6... don't make the 2.2 testers go back.

Now that I know there's no major issues with 2.2 that actually warranted the masking, I'll be switching back.

kthxbai.
_________________
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAA

avatar: new version of logo - see topic 838248. Potentially still a WiP.

[xaviermiller]

I agree with you : why mask a version that worked for MONTHS ? It has no sense to say "the 2.2 RC is in fact a 2.1 that must be masked". In that case, WHY was the 2.2_rc unmasked ?

PLEASE COMMUNICATE WITH THE USERS ! At least in planet, and in the forum (I see no sticky in the "portage" section about that).
_________________
Kind regards,
Xavier Miller

[ArneBab]

Currently we have two threads discussing almost the same.

The other one is: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?p=5294746

Just to avoid info replication.
_________________
Being unpolitical means being political without realizing it. - Arne Babenhauserheide ( http://draketo.de )

pkgcore: So fast that it feels unreal - by doing only what is needed.