| 1 |
On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:54:48 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Mateusz A. Mierzwin'ski" <mateuszmierzwinski@××.pl> wrote: |
| 3 |
> And I strongly suggest to leave old mechanism of portage, because we |
| 4 |
> saw couple times what _GREAT_ automatic makes with distro - eg. |
| 5 |
> Mandriva with all creators and cheap installer - couple apps not |
| 6 |
> running, low performance. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Don't get me wrong - I also have that problems, and they make me |
| 9 |
> nervous, but when I think what could I done by automatic replace |
| 10 |
> package or binary then I get to thinking that everything is ok... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm not suggesting automatic anything. Here's what I am suggesting. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Case A, Current Behaviour: User tries to install superfoo. User has |
| 15 |
foobar installed. User is presented with a big red blocking message, |
| 16 |
with no explanation. User has to work out that he is expected to |
| 17 |
uninstall foobar, then install superfoo (which is a problem if superfoo |
| 18 |
fails). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Case A, Suggested New Behaviour: User is instead presented with |
| 21 |
something like this: |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[block] app-misc/foobar is blocking app-misc/superfoo. |
| 24 |
Explanation: foobar and superfoo both provide /usr/bin/foo |
| 25 |
More information: http://www.gentoo.org/blah/blah.xml |
| 26 |
[install] app-misc/superfoo |
| 27 |
[uninstall] app-misc/foobar |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Error: the above resolution will uninstall 1 package. To accept |
| 30 |
this uninstall, use --permit-uninstalls. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Case B is similar to Case A in resolution, but it's probably nice to |
| 33 |
make the distinction. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Case C, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade foo. User is presented |
| 36 |
with a big red blocking message saying foo blocks libfoo or libfoo |
| 37 |
blocks foo, with no explanation (assuming it's not one of the subset of |
| 38 |
issues that can be solved automatically). |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Case C, Suggested New Behaviour: The package manager realises that so |
| 41 |
long as both foo and libfoo are upgraded during the same session, |
| 42 |
there's no real block, and the block is merely a way of getting around |
| 43 |
limitations in collision detection. No block is shown to the user. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Case D, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade coreutils. User gets a |
| 46 |
big flashy block error saying coreutils blocks mktemp. User doesn't |
| 47 |
realise that the safe upgrade path is to force the package manager to |
| 48 |
ignore the block, then manually uninstall mktemp straight afterwards. |
| 49 |
User instead uninstalls mktemp, which is a moderately critical binary. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Case D, Suggested New Behaviour: User is presented with something like |
| 52 |
this: |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
[block] sys-apps/coreutils is blocking sys-apps/mktemp |
| 55 |
Explanation: mktemp is now part of coreutils |
| 56 |
More information: http://www.gentoo.org/blah/blah.xml |
| 57 |
[upgrade] sys-apps/coreutils |
| 58 |
[uninstall] sys-apps/mktemp |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Error: the above resolution will uninstall 1 package. To accept |
| 61 |
this uninstall, use --permit-uninstalls. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Note how mktemp is uninstalled *after* coreutils has been upgraded. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
In none of these scenarios is it necessary to uninstall the blocked |
| 66 |
package before installing the package doing the blocking. But such |
| 67 |
scenarios probably exist, and ideally we'd have nice ways of dealing |
| 68 |
with that, so I'd like to know what all the current and projected |
| 69 |
future uses for blockers are. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
-- |
| 72 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives