why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

John Covici
Hi.  In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at
0.7.1 and they all want to update to 9999.  Does anyone know why this
should be -- normally 9999 is not in the normal update sequence.

I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago.  No harm
has come yet, but I have not done the update till I can figure out
what is happening here -- particularly if I need a rescue cd which is
using zfs 0.7.1.

Thanks in advance for any ideas.

--
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

J. Roeleveld
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote:

> Hi.  In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at
> 0.7.1 and they all want to update to 9999.  Does anyone know why this
> should be -- normally 9999 is not in the normal update sequence.
>
> I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago.  No harm
> has come yet, but I have not done the update till I can figure out
> what is happening here -- particularly if I need a rescue cd which is
> using zfs 0.7.1.
>
> Thanks in advance for any ideas.

check your keywords, how did you unmask zfs?

Here are mine:

$ grep -r zfs /etc/portage
/etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs
/etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs-kmod
/etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-kmod-0.7.1 ~amd64
/etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-0.7.1 ~amd64
$ grep -r spl /etc/portage
/etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-kernel/spl
/etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1 ~amd64

--
Joost

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

John Covici
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:50:20 -0400,
J. Roeleveld wrote:

>
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote:
> > Hi.  In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at
> > 0.7.1 and they all want to update to 9999.  Does anyone know why this
> > should be -- normally 9999 is not in the normal update sequence.
> >
> > I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago.  No harm
> > has come yet, but I have not done the update till I can figure out
> > what is happening here -- particularly if I need a rescue cd which is
> > using zfs 0.7.1.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any ideas.
>
> check your keywords, how did you unmask zfs?
>
> Here are mine:
>
> $ grep -r zfs /etc/portage
> /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs
> /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs-kmod
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-kmod-0.7.1 ~amd64
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-0.7.1 ~amd64
> $ grep -r spl /etc/portage
> /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-kernel/spl
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1 ~amd64

Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and I
think this is what made portage do that.
When I commented them out, things are back to normal.

Thanks again.

--
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

J. Roeleveld
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:34:48 AM CEST John Covici wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:50:20 -0400,
>
> J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote:
> > > Hi.  In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at
> > > 0.7.1 and they all want to update to 9999.  Does anyone know why this
> > > should be -- normally 9999 is not in the normal update sequence.
> > >
> > > I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago.  No harm
> > > has come yet, but I have not done the update till I can figure out
> > > what is happening here -- particularly if I need a rescue cd which is
> > > using zfs 0.7.1.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for any ideas.
> >
> > check your keywords, how did you unmask zfs?
> >
> > Here are mine:
> >
> > $ grep -r zfs /etc/portage
> > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs
> > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-fs/zfs-kmod
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-kmod-0.7.1 ~amd64
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-fs/zfs-0.7.1 ~amd64
> > $ grep -r spl /etc/portage
> > /etc/portage/sets/zfs:sys-kernel/spl
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords/zfs:=sys-kernel/spl-0.7.1 ~amd64
>
> Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and I
> think this is what made portage do that.
> When I commented them out, things are back to normal.
>
> Thanks again.

That might have happened automatically as portage tends to want to unmask the
latest version if it can't find an unmasked version that matches requirements.

I always answer "no" to those requests and copy/paste the actual lines myself
after checking they are really what I want.

--
Joost


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

Walter Dnes
In reply to this post by John Covici
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote

> Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and
> I think this is what made portage do that.  When I commented them out,
> things are back to normal.

  Maybe portage inserted that entry itself.  If you want to prevent that
in future, add the following line to make.conf ...

EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n"

--
Walter Dnes <[hidden email]>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

John Covici
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:26:20 -0400,
Walter Dnes wrote:

>
> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote
>
> > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and
> > I think this is what made portage do that.  When I commented them out,
> > things are back to normal.
>
>   Maybe portage inserted that entry itself.  If you want to prevent that
> in future, add the following line to make.conf ...
>
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n"

Good point, thanks.

--
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

J. Roeleveld
In reply to this post by Walter Dnes
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:26:20 PM CEST Walter Dnes wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote
>
> > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the 9999 in package.keywords and
> > I think this is what made portage do that.  When I commented them out,
> > things are back to normal.
>
>   Maybe portage inserted that entry itself.  If you want to prevent that
> in future, add the following line to make.conf ...
>
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n"

This should be off by default.
My systems always ask me and I don't have the above set.

--
Joost


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

Neil Bothwick
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 06:09:31 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:

> >   Maybe portage inserted that entry itself.  If you want to prevent
> > that in future, add the following line to make.conf ...
> >
> > EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n"  
>
> This should be off by default.
> My systems always ask me and I don't have the above set.

It is on by default but it doesn't write to config files, that's
autounmask-write, which is off by default unless you are using --ask.
Even when on it respects CONFIG_PROTECT so no changes will be made until
you run etc-update or similar.


--
Neil Bothwick

Unsolicited advice is the junk mail of life

attachment0 (849 bytes) Download Attachment