| 1 |
On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 17:23:48 +0300 |
| 2 |
Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 14:57:36 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 16:41:56 +0300 |
| 5 |
> > Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> [...] |
| 7 |
> > > I see no point in trashing ebuilds with dead code that will never |
| 8 |
> > > be used. Though if there will be a PMS or eclass function with |
| 9 |
> > > "proper" implementation, I don't mind, since extra code will be |
| 10 |
> > > moved from ebuild elsewhere. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Slots are not the only way in which you can end up with multiple |
| 13 |
> > installed versions of the same package. Another way is if there's a |
| 14 |
> > fatal error during certain parts of the upgrade process. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If setup is broken to the point when several version within single |
| 17 |
> slot are installed (or are reported to be installed), then: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> 1) There is no way to tell which version is valid and all of them |
| 20 |
> may be invalid. That's why REPLACING_VERSIONS is of no use at all |
| 21 |
> in such situation. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> 2) System is severely broken and mistakenly shown (or not shown) |
| 24 |
> ewarn message will be the least problem for a user of such system. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Uh, nope. The PM can recover from that situation, so long as people |
| 27 |
don't go around writing broken ebuilds that make unwarranted |
| 28 |
assumptions that the spec specifically tells them not to make. Don't |
| 29 |
get into the habit of writing broken code. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Or to put it another way: you are wrong, and you don't know enough |
| 32 |
about the situation to understand why you're wrong, and you clearly |
| 33 |
have no interest in learning, so just do as you're told. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives