Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn" <chithanh@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2011 21:38:04
Message-Id: 4E88D98E.7040404@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild by Samuli Suominen
Samuli Suominen schrieb:

>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which >> would justify mask and removal. >> >> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary >> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch >> systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because >> of this. >> > > The new xorg-servers could get package.masked until these major drivers > are available. > Albeit, I'm not intrested in pursuing this since with separate > xorg-server package, it's the drivers that need rebuilding against it, > and the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is keeping it in certain version until > the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is satisfied. > > Poor example to make a case.
VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to.
> The intresting part of that document is "You should also not cause an > unnecessary downgrade for any "~arch" when ..." which also applies to > setting dependencies just as well.
The downgrade is necessary to avoid user-visible breakage. And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn

Replies