1 |
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 01:33:27AM +0200, Branko Badrljica wrote: |
2 |
> 1. Much of the time on Gentoo using of ~ packages is not user explicit |
3 |
> choice but forced compromise. |
4 |
> I don't remember exactly anymore what prompted me to enter openrc in |
5 |
> package.keywords, but I surely remember having a few headaches with it. |
6 |
> Same is with many other packages- many times using ~arch is the only |
7 |
> answer, so 99% of the time it is used for getting some package to work |
8 |
> and not for pure testing. |
9 |
|
10 |
The ~arch tree is where things go when they first enter the tree, and, |
11 |
if there are no issues with them for a period of time they are marked |
12 |
stable. Hard masking, on the other hand, generally is for packages that |
13 |
are known to break many systems. |
14 |
|
15 |
The developer tested the package and had others test it and it worked |
16 |
for them, so he committed it to the ~arch tree, which was the correct |
17 |
thing for him to do. |
18 |
|
19 |
> Having in mind state of the matter in_real_world, I really don't think |
20 |
> that having such things at least temporarily masked ( not to mention |
21 |
> DOCUMENTED!) is really not overdoing it. |
22 |
|
23 |
Technically, there is nothing to document except possibly warning |
24 |
against changing the oldnet use flag. But, again, if you are using |
25 |
~arch packages you should know how to recover. |
26 |
|
27 |
The openrc guide is at |
28 |
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml, and it still |
29 |
documents the correct way to upgrade to openrc if you did not switch to |
30 |
the new network scripts. |
31 |
|
32 |
> As it was done, it presented me with nasty surprise. Machine has gotten |
33 |
> through upgrade world just fine and only after reboot it couldn't start |
34 |
> network interfaces. Manual restart croaked with some error about python |
35 |
> not being able to find some function. |
36 |
|
37 |
That doesn't sound like an openrc issue; openrc does not have anything |
38 |
to do with python as far as I know. |
39 |
|
40 |
I would be curious what other packages were involved in the update? |
41 |
What did you do to get the system up and running again? |
42 |
|
43 |
> It felt exactly like a few last times when my ext4 decided to lose a few |
44 |
> hundred essential system files. There was nothing to suggest openrc. |
45 |
> After I lost some time reemerging system files and sifting through |
46 |
> ebuilds, packages and scripts, that casual message here about new openrc |
47 |
> hit me purely by chance, otherwise I would be in for much more pain. |
48 |
> After I got system running again, I couldn't find anywhere anything at |
49 |
> all about any substantial change in openrc. |
50 |
> Not on bugzilla, not on openrc home page nor anywhere else. |
51 |
|
52 |
That's because there wasn't one, and because ~arch is not considered |
53 |
stable anyway. ~arch is where things go so that we can get them |
54 |
tested, after we test them ourselves, before they move to stable. And, |
55 |
as was said above, if you are running ~arch and things break, you are |
56 |
expected to know how to recover. |
57 |
|
58 |
When you file the bug, please give us all of the details about what you |
59 |
did, what was upgraded, the exact error message you got, etc. |
60 |
|
61 |
-- |
62 |
William Hubbs |
63 |
gentoo accessibility team lead |
64 |
williamh@g.o |