| 1 |
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:33:35 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Samstag 30 Juni 2012, 13:22:39 schrieb Zac Medico: |
| 5 |
> > On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I would like to discuss a bit more issues like: |
| 7 |
> > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087 |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this |
| 10 |
> > > breakage when downgraded, I think it should be prevented and |
| 11 |
> > > package managers shouldn't try to downgrade this kind of packages |
| 12 |
> > > as they will later cause a total breakage. People is not supposed |
| 13 |
> > > to know that downgrading some package system will, for example, |
| 14 |
> > > have an unusable gcc. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > It seems like a die in pkg_pretend would serve pretty well. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> As a comparatively simple, user-oriented workaround, since this only |
| 19 |
> happens at downgrades and these should be pretty rare, I have the |
| 20 |
> following suggestion: |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Make a portage feature that is **on by default**, which causes |
| 23 |
> portage to generate a binpkg of the version to be unmerged, in the |
| 24 |
> case of a downgrade. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Rationale: |
| 27 |
> * if you know what you are doing, you can switch this off easily |
| 28 |
> * does not take much space since downgrades are rare |
| 29 |
> * should help our users a lot, whenever someone accidentally or |
| 30 |
> not-knowingly downgrades something critical. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Thoughts? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
That might be neat, but it would already help if you had to add |
| 36 |
--allow-downgrades or similar to emerge in case Portage wants to |
| 37 |
downgrade one or more packages. |
| 38 |
Besides preventing an accidental downgrade it would raise the |
| 39 |
awareness of the problem. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Cheers, |
| 42 |
> Andreas |
| 43 |
> |
Archives