| 1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Portage seems OK with the missing dependency, but for the overall plan |
| 4 |
> to work, you have to wait a long time before deleting virtual/emacs; |
| 5 |
> otherwise the upgrade path is broken. With virtual/emacs-26 installed |
| 6 |
> and "old" copies of the elisp ebuilds installed, you get unsatisfied |
| 7 |
> dependencies switching from emacs-vcs to a live slot of emacs. Everyone |
| 8 |
> in that situation must update to virtual/emacs-26-r1, which they can't |
| 9 |
> do after you delete it. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> And of course you can't mask virtual/emacs in the meantime, because that |
| 12 |
> does kill the PM. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I have no plans of masking the virtual. It will be simply removed, |
| 15 |
presumably after the app-editors/emacs-27.1 release (at which point any |
| 16 |
emacs-vcs-27.0* will be outdated, and be blocked against by the ebuild). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> New revisions would still be the sane solution, now and in the future, |
| 19 |
> because they don't require investigative journalism to uncover exactly |
| 20 |
> what might go wrong when we bend the rules /this time/. They also don't |
| 21 |
> impose a cutoff date after which upgrading users are screwed. You just |
| 22 |
> automate the revbumps, commit them all at once, and make a pull request |
| 23 |
> against CI to verify that nothing is too borked. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
See? You say it yourself, with 400 revbumps there is quite some chance |
| 26 |
for breakage. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ulrich |
Archives