| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Right now, these eclasses are eapi 7 only (with latest changes)
I would imagine that with a little push the rest of the eclasses will be converted, then it's heil whoever time. 
| Code: | $ grep "SUPPORTED_EAPIS:[ ]*7" *
acct-group.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
acct-user.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
aspell-dict-r1.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
bazel.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
cargo.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
cmake-multilib.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
cmake.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
dist-kernel-utils.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
ecm.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
emboss-r2.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
font-ebdftopcf.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
font.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
freedict.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
go-module.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
gstreamer-meson.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
kde.org.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
kernel-build.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
kernel-install.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
latex-package.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
lua-single.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
lua-utils.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
lua.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
meson-multilib.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
netsurf.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
qmake-utils.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
qt5-build.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
sgml-catalog-r1.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
sword-module.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
grep: tests: Is a directory
texlive-common.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
texlive-module.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
verify-sig.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
wxwidgets.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7
xorg-3.eclass:# @SUPPORTED_EAPIS: 7 |
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland
Last edited by Anon-E-moose on Wed Jun 09, 2021 9:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leonardo.b
Apprentice
Joined: 10 Oct 2020
Posts: 296
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2021 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alamahant; Rust is another thing you may be able to avoid.
librsvg for me was pulled in as build-time dependency to prepare some icons.
I just unpack icon themes downloaded from the web into /usr/share/icons.
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | With this I can use tty7/8 as I'm in the tty group, I'm also in the input group. |
I followed your suggestion, but Xorg root:input sugid.
p.provided is a one-line patch , I think.
+1 for the mini-distro.
Edit: Oops. Wrong link.
one-line patch, I think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | Basically it's what pjp said, kind of a mini distro. |
| Leonardo.b wrote: | | +1 for the mini-distro. |
To be clear, I mean a base system capable of running on its own, not a customized Gentoo. I don't plan to use a package manager, so that type of thing is why I call it "mini" (well, that and size). I may even try to use it for a while.
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | I think that, at least part of it, is that the users are getting tired of these changes that don't do anything for them, other than cause them more work on their end. I'm sorry I see no benefit to me for the upcoming eapi 7 lockout, nor do I see any benefit to the acct-* nonsense, that was foisted upon gentoo users, and I doubt I'm the only one not happy with these things. Then it seems like the gentoo devs/council/et al don't care about the users, at least it appears that way to some of us. They seem to view us users the same way gnome does. |
<rhetorical> Does everything always make every user happy? </rhetorical>
Keeping that in mind, I will ask a two-part non-rhetorical question. Should changes visible to "casual" users (as opposed to "power" users) only be made if they are an obvious benefit users? The other side of that question is, should changes that help devs do their "job" only be made if they are not visible to "casual" users? Before you answer, I'll explain why I'm asking.
I wasn't and am not a fan of acct-* as a chosen solution. However, I can see a benefit to development in having the user management process handled by the same tool that handles other changes. Gentoo devs were already managing users, so the issue isn't that they are, but how they are doing it. By using ebuilds, user management has become easier to handle, even by casual users. Yep, there's actually a benefit to users. Through Portage, you can now define how users are created on your system (uid, gid, ...?). In fact, I believe that was a solution implemented because the capability was requested by... users.
As a solution, packages.provided seems like a "Warranty Void if Removed" label. Maybe devs aren't getting a lot of bug reports as a result of users voiding their warranty, but it also seems like a hack solution. Because the virtual package replacement solution relies more on Portage to do its thing and determine correct and incorrect behavior, then that specific capability now seems to be handled better than it was previously. So the next question would be was there any other intended capability that is missing as a result? Maybe devs originally intended packages.provided to "short-circuit" Portage consistency, but I doubt that.
What functionality will be missing with packages.provided gone that doesn't have a "more correct" solution supported by Portage? That doing it correctly is harder is always true. The most obvious example is security, or even more simply, privilege separation.
In both cases (acct-*, provided removal) I would say there are benefits to users. That they happen to not be for other users, or even remove an actual or perceived capability, is an unfortunate occurrence within the context of my rhetorical question. On acct-* though, I'll challenge you on it having no benefit to users. I'd argue that it has almost no negative impact on users (as a solution, separate from its rollout).
Maybe it could be helpful to try considering the bigger picture where changes seem to have only negative impact. Is that really likely to be true, or is that perception skewed by a possibly negative impact on your situation.
Oh, and it might be a good idea to make a small edit to your first post on this page.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pjp wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | Basically it's what pjp said, kind of a mini distro. |
| Leonardo.b wrote: | | +1 for the mini-distro. |
To be clear, I mean a base system capable of running on its own, not a customized Gentoo. I don't plan to use a package manager, so that type of thing is why I call it "mini" (well, that and size). I may even try to use it for a while. |
On one of my early systems (back in linux 2.* days) I had redhat laid down as a base system, but over time, I started adding more and more things the RH didn't offer, so I compiled them myself. The thing I was missing was what most package manager provide, a way to keep track of everything laid down per package, so that it could be easily removed, in other words a var/db/pkg type tracking. So I can see the need or should I say the advantages of using a package manager, or at least parts of it. I can't say that I like portage over rpm/apt/take your pick, but I would think some type of package management would be almost a necessity.
| Quote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | I think that, at least part of it, is that the users are getting tired of these changes that don't do anything for them, other than cause them more work on their end. I'm sorry I see no benefit to me for the upcoming eapi 7 lockout, nor do I see any benefit to the acct-* nonsense, that was foisted upon gentoo users, and I doubt I'm the only one not happy with these things. Then it seems like the gentoo devs/council/et al don't care about the users, at least it appears that way to some of us. They seem to view us users the same way gnome does. |
<rhetorical> Does everything always make every user happy? </rhetorical> |
I can see the need for a centralized small db, with package and uid/gid info for that, one that could be interrogated for a "suggested" uid/gid combo.
But the way it was done, was less than desirable. Just my opinion.
I've seen too many reports of people having to battle the acct-* nonsense, on an already set up system, in other words it's already set up uid/gid for that individuals uses. I chose not to go there.
I do agree that package.provided is a strange beast, more an addon by some dev in the past that somehow took on a life of it's own.
I use p.p for only a few things.
Example: early on I noticed that gtk+3 wanted to pull in dbus, and the accessibility bridge.
At that time, I didn't need those packages on my system or want them on there (don't get me started on the accessibility stuff being mandatory)
so I made a patch to do away with those, in the package itself. That still left me with the problem that portage wanted to install them, even though they weren't necessary. I could (and my original push) was to modify the ebuild (gets tiresome when devs rapid fire ebuilds with -r* crap for no reason).
My next step was not to modify the ebuild at all and just put the packages that portage "wanted to install" in p.p. Problem solved easily.
Without p.p, it's back to modifying the ebuilds, and at that point I start pondering whether I should continue to use portage/gentoo or just go a different direction.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gatsby
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 116
Location: 127.0.0.1
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | *cough*mgorny*cough* well, I wouldn't really call him a policy maker, more a disaster, but he's the push behind EAPI 7 etc. |
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | I think that, at least part of it, is that the users are getting tired of these changes that don't do anything for them, other than cause them more work on their end. I'm sorry I see no benefit to me for the upcoming eapi 7 lockout, nor do I see any benefit to the acct-* nonsense, that was foisted upon gentoo users, and I doubt I'm the only one not happy with these things. Then it seems like the gentoo devs/council/et al don't care about the users, at least it appears that way to some of us. They seem to view us users the same way gnome does. |
You nailed it.
_________________
Γνωθι σεαυτον. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | alamahant wrote: | Maybe the Gentoo users can make a strong request NOT to remove package.provided.
Who is the policy maker in Gentoo?
Just curious........ |
*cough*mgorny*cough* well, I wouldn't really call him a policy maker, more a disaster, but he's the push behind EAPI 7 etc. |
Keep your crap confined to your safe space, pretty please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm happy if moderation is able to come up with a more appropriate description of your behaviour, I can't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dominique_71
Veteran
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 1877
Location: Switzerland (Romandie)
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alamahant wrote: | Pam was finally pulled by lightdm but i may work on it further to try to unmerge it...
I will follow each and everyone's advice |
Running fvwm, even with x11-themes/fvwm-crystal on top of it, will not pull pam. With a full fvwm-crystal install running from years and with all the optional fvwm-crystal's dependencies installed, and even more (as example jackd running permanently as sound server), I get:
| Code: | # ls /run
acpid.pid autofs-running dbus libvirt openrc runlevel udev.pid
acpid.socket autofs.pid dbus.pid lock pm-utils sm-notify.pid utmp
agetty.reload avahi-daemon dhcpcd lvm resolvconf sudo wpa_cli-wlan0.pid
alsasound cryptsetup faillock mount rpc.statd.pid syslog-ng.ctl wpa_supplicant
apache2 cups initctl netifrc_dhcpcd_eth0_args rpcbind.lock syslog-ng.pid wpa_supplicant-wlan0.pid |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morality124
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 20 Feb 2018
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | alamahant wrote: | Maybe the Gentoo users can make a strong request NOT to remove package.provided.
Who is the policy maker in Gentoo?
Just curious........ |
*cough*mgorny*cough* well, I wouldn't really call him a policy maker, more a disaster, but he's the push behind EAPI 7 etc. |
Keep your crap confined to your safe space, pretty please. |
So you are implying Gentoo Forums is your safe space?
Also, if our forums are a safe space, we're doing a pretty crappy job given you can register there any time you want.
_________________
OTW 2.0
"Put your message in a modem and throw it in the cyber sea." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21631
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moose: please refrain from sniping at Gentoo maintainers. There are several who have made unpopular decisions, but in this thread, it would have been sufficient to mention the name(s) of those who pushed removal of package.provided and stop without commentary on how (un)popular their other decisions were. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Code_of_conduct
Interesting, especially the Unacceptable behaviour portion |
You mean? | Quote: | Posting/participating only to incite drama or negativity rather than to tactfully share information.
Being judgmental, mean-spirited or insulting. It is possible to respectfully challenge someone in a way that empowers without being judgemental. |
This only applies to users. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HungGarTiger
Apprentice
Joined: 04 Feb 2014
Posts: 180
Location: /nz/auckland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This thread is about to get the whole Gentoo Chat section deleted |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nah, it would suffice only for the usual OTW bad-faith actors to be banned. It's always the same with them.
@Tony0945, I'm sure you're a good chap, but from time to time I am wondering if you ever understood what got you temporarily banned in this forum, or if you regard it as historic injustice.
Here's a simple rule for the Moose to follow: Don't post stupid stuff, then you won't be called out on it. And this EAPI-7 teabaggery is beyond stupid, it just goes to show you will use anything, no matter how far-fetched, to perpetuate your smear campaign against certain developer(s). And it is casting doubt on any technical criticism you might otherwise have.
Last edited by asturm on Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54236
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Team,
Stop the infighting please or the next post by me here will be to lock the topic.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6098
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hu wrote: | | Moose: please refrain from sniping at Gentoo maintainers. There are several who have made unpopular decisions, but in this thread, it would have been sufficient to mention the name(s) of those who pushed removal of package.provided and stop without commentary on how (un)popular their other decisions were. |
Seriously, I get a call out for having an opinion and daring to speak it.
And yet, asturm, behind much of the ongoing drama, stalking several members of the forum, for months, in clear violation of the CoC ... nada.
And I know good and well, that you mods/admins have seen that it's not all one sided, nor always "the users"
Just for clarification:
Stalking behaviors are interrelated to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them.
Fine then, circle the wagons to protect, I'll leave you fine people alone. God knows, I wouldn't want to hurt some overly delicate persons sensibilities.
Snarky, yes, I suppose I am. Enjoy.
_________________
PRIME x570-pro, 3700x, 6.1 zen kernel
gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alamahant
Advocate
Joined: 23 Mar 2019
Posts: 3879
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some points
Emerging the
xfce4-meta
was smooth after an entry in package.provided
| Code: |
xfce-extra/thunar-volman-4.16.0
|
I noticed that while on Enlightenment I could use the DE power buttons to reboot but this was not the case in xfce my love.
But i do NOT care at all about the power buttons.
As for creating the
directory
i am using a startup script from xfce settings for login and another one for login out.
Something like
| Code: |
#!/bin/bash
dir="/run/user/$UID"
[ ! -d /run/user ] && sudo mkdir /run/user
[ ! -d $dir ] && sudo mkdir $dir
sudo mount -t tmpfs -o rw,nosuid,nodev,relatime,mode=755,uid=$UID,gid=$UID tmpfs $dir
[ ! -d $dir/pulse ] && sudo mkdir $dir/pulse
[ ! -d $dir/dbus-1/services ] && sudo mkdir -p $dir/dbus-1/services
[ ! -d $dir/dconf ] && sudo mkdir $dir/dconf && sudo touch $dir/dconf/user
[ ! -d $dir/gvfsd ] && sudo mkdir $dir/gvfsd
sudo cp /home/$USER/.ICEauthority $dir/ICEauthority
sudo chmod 666 $dir/ICEauthority
sudo chown -R $USER:$USER /run/user/$UID
|
and login out
| Code: |
#!/bin/bash
dir="/run/user/$UID"
if mountpoint -q $dir;then
sudo umount $dir
fi
|
I noticed tthat if i run these via xfce start-up apps I need sudo wheres if i use /etc/local.d I do not need sudo.It runs as root.
But in case of local.d it cant be user-specific.I will need to use user 1000 explicitly.
Although gnupg creates its folder by itself
pulseaudio does not create the socket and pid files which i found created in /tp/pulsexxxxx
As for neutering pam as Anon-E-moose suggested
is this the way
in /etc/pam.d/system-auth
| Code: |
auth required pam_permit.so
account required pam_permit.so
.
.
.
|
?
Thanks a lot Guys!!!
_________________
Last edited by alamahant on Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zucca
Moderator
Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 3343
Location: Rasi, Finland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From my perspective, some (plural) people are using phrases that are somewhat provoking to some users.
While it isn't against any rules, it's certainly not helping this or any other thread from derailing into flood of personal arguments and insults.
We all have differing opinions and ways to accomplish things. Let's accept that.
_________________
..: Zucca :..
Gentoo IRC channels reside on Libera.Chat.
--
| Quote: | | I am NaN! I am a man! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21631
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anon-E-moose wrote: | | Hu wrote: | | Moose: please refrain from sniping at Gentoo maintainers. There are several who have made unpopular decisions, but in this thread, it would have been sufficient to mention the name(s) of those who pushed removal of package.provided and stop without commentary on how (un)popular their other decisions were. |
Seriously, I get a call out for having an opinion and daring to speak it. |
You got a call out because, as best I could tell, yours was the first post in this thread that started the subthread of arguments about appropriate conduct. From past experience, you and I both know that certain posters (both developers and regular contributors) cannot let that kind of remark slide, and it will eventually escalate into the report thread, and from there may escalate into the thread being split/locked. Since the thread started with a legitimate technical discussion around package.provided and discussed whether its removal will cause more problems than it solves, I would like to keep the thread open and pursuing that line of discussion. It is interesting, and depending on what is said, might even lead to someone more formally pushing back on the removal. I'm not saying you cannot mention mgorny by name or that you cannot criticize mgorny's decision to remove package.provided. I am asking that you focus the criticism on why you think that removal is bad. Instead of calling him a disaster, you could have said "mgorny has been a driving force behind several decisions which received strong criticism from the user community." (Yes, this statement of mine contradicts my earlier post, where I suggested not discussing his other decisions.) This would convey that he has a history of conduct that multiple people consider undesirable, and if someone complains about that characterization, you can cite incidents in support of your statement. Portraying him as having a history of unpopular decisions (and supporting that portrayal) would bolster the argument that this decision too may turn out badly. | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | And yet, asturm, behind much of the ongoing drama, stalking several members of the forum, for months, in clear violation of the CoC ... nada. |
Yes, asturm often Reports posts of this type, in addition to showing up in thread. I wish he would be a bit nicer (particularly to the new users who clearly do not know what they are doing), but he provides enough technical value in his posts that I cannot say the forum would clearly be better without him. Most of the regulars I see active in this thread are, in my opinion, a net positive to the forum. (For the others, I don't recognize them well enough to say whether or not they are. I'm not saying anyone here is definitely a net negative.) | Anon-E-moose wrote: | | And I know good and well, that you mods/admins have seen that it's not all one sided, nor always "the users" |
Yes. I still remember when the Report thread got quite long due to several developers digging out months/years old threads in OTW. | Anon-E-moose wrote: | Fine then, circle the wagons to protect, I'll leave you fine people alone. God knows, I wouldn't want to hurt some overly delicate persons sensibilities.
Snarky, yes, I suppose I am. Enjoy. |
I would prefer you stick around and try to contribute. If the Gentoo developers continue to push changes that antagonize enough users, we will need competent contributors to offer overlays that behave more like users want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alamahant
Advocate
Joined: 23 Mar 2019
Posts: 3879
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If i may chip in I am not an experienced user or anything like that
BUT I would definitely would NOT like to see package.provided go.
For example
If one needs samba and the clang toolchain he has to use package.provided
because libunwind and llvm-libunwind are blocking each other.
So I ended up making an entry for libunwind in package.provided and i got a perfectly working samba together with a perfect clang-toolchain.
I know the USE="llvm-libunwind" is optional but nevertheless.
Nobody is above complain and criticism no?
And i heartily hope that Gentoo will not become another ubuntu slowly slowly.
CHOICE is why people love Gentoo no?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The whole discussion is moot since the quoted paragraph is explicitly talking about p.provided support in profiles. As long as your PMS compliant package manager of choice is supporting a p.provided directory below /etc/portage you are fine, EAPI-7 is completely irrelevant there. But of course, the quoted paragraph is served from a particular URI, hence bashing ensues... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54236
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alamahant,
There in a fine line between attacking an idea or a technical implementation and attacking the person who actually did the work.
We all all ears for a spirited technical debate, even a heated spirited technical debate supported by fact and rational deductions.
Attacking the individual is not OK. Stating an opinion about the technical competence, or otherwise, usually ends badly. Even if there is supporting evidence.
Expressing opinions it that way will often inflame another reader.
With posters having differing competencies in different dialects of English, things get even murkier.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Moderator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21631
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | The whole discussion is moot since the quoted paragraph is explicitly talking about p.provided support in profiles. As long as your PMS compliant package manager of choice is supporting a p.provided directory below /etc/portage you are fine, EAPI-7 is completely irrelevant there. But of course, the quoted paragraph is served from a particular URI, hence bashing ensues... |
While I can see that interpretation, the fragment as quoted does not, in my opinion, make clear the position you stated in the post I am quoting. I think that if it had been clearer that this was a change that only tree maintainers (both Gentoo main tree maintainers and overlay maintainers) need to care about, and that end users can completely ignore this change, then there would have been less or no criticism, regardless of the URL of the original post. Since end users write to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided to use the local form, I can see why readers interpreted the mgorny quote as relevant to end users. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mike155
Advocate
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 4438
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| asturm wrote: | | The whole discussion is moot since the quoted paragraph is explicitly talking about p.provided support in profiles. As long as your PMS compliant package manager of choice is supporting a p.provided directory below /etc/portage you are fine, EAPI-7 is completely irrelevant there. But of course, the quoted paragraph is served from a particular URI, hence bashing ensues... |
I would like to understand this, but I can't. What am I missing?
So far, my package.provided is in /etc/portage/profiles/package.provided. It works.
Will this file be supported with EAPI=7? Or will support for this file be removed?
What about "package.provided" in /etc/portage? I tried to move /etc/portage/profiles/package.provided to /etc/portage/package.provided, but emerge doesn't recognize this file. I also created a directory /etc/portage/package.provided and moved package.provided into that directory, but emerge ignores that file, too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asturm
Developer
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 8936
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2021 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have >76% EAPI-7 coverage at this point, no one had the simple idea of just trying it out with a random EAPI-7 based package yet? Bashing is easier, right?
If bump of baseline EAPI in profiles is affecting local overrides, which is not clear at all right now, you could file a bug report to re-use existing functionality in portage at the same level as package.accept_keywords etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
