[gentoo-user] Firefox 3.5 without changing entire system t..

On 11/2/2009 1:26 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 11/02/2009 07:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:
>> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
>> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
>> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
>> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!
>
> 3.5.3-r1 is actually stable on amd64 but not on x86. You might want
> to open a bug on bugs.gentoo.org about this.
>
OK. I will do that.

Marcus

Marcus Wanner writes:

> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

autounmask -p www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.5.3-r1 shows net-libs/xulrunner
(for three times which I find strange), but nothing else. Maybe I already
have some other stuff in package.keywords, but it's not that much.

Wonko

On 11/2/2009 12:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:

> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!

For mozilla specifically, see below.

In general, you would create a file called /etc/portage/package.keywords
(or as I prefer, a directory /etc/portage/package.keywords/ and then a
file within that directory), and put the package name in it.

However, it's generally considered a bad idea to mix and match arch and
~arch on a single system, since the dependencies cascade pretty quickly.
You'll eventually end up with the core packages on your system
keyworded anyway, which defeats the whole point of running stable.

> P.S. Mozilla considers this version to be stable/mature and is pushing
> out it as the version most people should use. Why hasn't it been marked
> as stable in the portage tree yet?

It may just be an oversight; check bugs.gentoo.org to see if there's
already a bug report asking it to be stabilized. If there isn't already
one, just file a new one. (It may help to mention that it's stable on
amd64 already.)

--Mike

On 11/2/2009 1:40 PM, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 11/2/2009 12:16 PM, Marcus Wanner wrote:
>
>> Could anyone tell me how to install firefox 3.5.x without changing the
>> entire installation to ~arch? I have been looking around on the web for
>> how to do this, but can't find anything that doesn't require being
>> (afaict) very invasive to the rest of the system. Thanks!
>
> For mozilla specifically, see below.
>
> In general, you would create a file called
> /etc/portage/package.keywords (or as I prefer, a directory
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/ and then a file within that directory),
> and put the package name in it.
>
> However, it's generally considered a bad idea to mix and match arch
> and ~arch on a single system, since the dependencies cascade pretty
> quickly. You'll eventually end up with the core packages on your
> system keyworded anyway, which defeats the whole point of running stable.
>
>> P.S. Mozilla considers this version to be stable/mature and is pushing
>> out it as the version most people should use. Why hasn't it been marked
>> as stable in the portage tree yet?
>
> It may just be an oversight; check bugs.gentoo.org to see if there's
> already a bug report asking it to be stabilized. If there isn't
> already one, just file a new one. (It may help to mention that it's
> stable on amd64 already.)
>
> --Mike
Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that
did the trick.

Marcus

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that did
> the trick.
>
> Marcus
>
>

You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
to running stable.

In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.

good luck,
Mark

On 11/2/2009 3:11 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>> Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that did
>> the trick.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>
> You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
> two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
> comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
> you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
> to running stable.
>
> In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
> given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
> starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
> yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.
>
> good luck,
> Mark
>
Thanks for the tip and the help, I'll make sure to keep that list short.
The only program I have this kind problem with is firefox, though, with
everything else I can get by with an older version. It's really becuase
Mozilla doesn't really support the older versions. Oh well, it will be
fixed eventually.

Marcus

Mark Knecht writes:

> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Marcus Wanner <marcusw.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> > Thank you, I added firefox and xulrunner to package.keywords and that
> > did the trick.

> You might want to periodically run eix-test-obsolete -d to see if the
> two packages get marked stable before some other new ~arch version
> comes out. If that happens, and it often does in my experience, then
> you can remove the two packages from portage.keywords and you're back
> to running stable.

When I need to unmask something in package.keywords, I prefer to put the
package along with its version number in it. I leave out the trailing -rN,
and start with ~ instead of =, which means that minor revision updates
(increasing the -rN) which often are security fixes are also matched.
Talking about firefox, I just added these two lines before I replied to this
thread some hours ago:

~www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.5.3
~net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.4

When a newer ~arch xulrunner enters the portage tree, it will not be
upgraded.

There are also some packages which I like to be always the new version, so I
leave out the version number. firefox could be such an application. But for
everything I have to unmask additionally, I add the version numbers.

I use eix-test-obsolete once in a while in order to clean this of redundant
entries.

> In general I tend to have 4 or 5 packages in package.keywords at any
> given time. I don't have too much trouble. Watch out if the list
> starts getting large though as things get messy and you'll find
> yourself doing more updates than maybe you want to be doing.

Oh, my package.keywords is quite large, with about 50 entries. Oh, and the
300 entries for KDE 4.3.

Wonko