1 |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:52 -0500 as excerpted: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 21:42:14 Michael Weber wrote: |
5 |
>>> Um, what happend to the policy to not f*** around with stable ebuilds? |
6 |
>> |
7 |
|
8 |
I think there is a legitimate issue with changing dependencies on |
9 |
stable ebuilds. If for whatever reason a mistake is made, you just |
10 |
broke tons of stable systems - especially if people rebuild with -N. |
11 |
The idea is that stuff goes through testing before it hits stable, |
12 |
which is why we call it stable. If you change stable directly, then |
13 |
it isn't stable. :) |
14 |
|
15 |
>> |
16 |
>>> I see a violation of this rule at least on [glibc-]2.13-r4, which |
17 |
>>> leads to useless rebuilds on `emerge -avuND world` on every single |
18 |
>>> gentoo install world-wide. |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> i don't have too much compassion for -N. if people really care enough |
21 |
>> about it, they'd read the ChangeLog and see that it is meaningless. |
22 |
|
23 |
Until somebody posts a definitive list of which features we have |
24 |
compassion on, and which ones we don't, we should have compassion on |
25 |
anybody using standard portage features. It seems like when things go |
26 |
wrong with somebody's box the knee-jerk reaction is to say "well, you |
27 |
should be running daily emerge -alphabetsoup world" where alphabetsoup |
28 |
tends to vary by individual preference. I do recall some talk a few |
29 |
months ago about how it might not hurt to come up with a |
30 |
best-practices suggestion for doing regular upgrades, but it hasn't |
31 |
happened yet. I'm pretty sure -N was one of the items that was tossed |
32 |
around as a best practice. |
33 |
|
34 |
> I'm not going to complain much about a mere single package, glibc, |
35 |
> triggering a -N rebuild. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> But I'm not going to complain about gentoo/kde doing it with 200-ish, |
38 |
> either (way more if I had all of kde installed, I don't), for several |
39 |
> reasons: |
40 |
> |
41 |
> 1) I'm not only running ~arch, I'm running the overlay. |
42 |
|
43 |
I'm running stable amd64 and the same kde issue directly hit stable. |
44 |
Oh, this is two days after the version bump hit stable - so that is |
45 |
200 packages twice in two days. So, I will point out that this could |
46 |
have been better coordinated, although the extra rebuilds are |
47 |
harmless. |
48 |
|
49 |
> 3) Mike's right. The -N is simply available to give users a way to be |
50 |
> notified of such changes if they wish to be, presumably thru use of -p or |
51 |
> -a. It DOESN'T mean they have to actually do the remerge, as they can |
52 |
> either choose to ignore -N and not use it entirely, thus remaining |
53 |
> blissfully unaware of such changes, or use it simply as notification, go |
54 |
> look at the logs and see what the change was about, and decide based on |
55 |
> that whether it's worth the remerge. |
56 |
|
57 |
So, suppose I don't want to update those 200 kde packages, but I don't |
58 |
want to ignore the odd package that does come up in -N in the future? |
59 |
Do I just run a daily emerge -puDN world, look at the output, then |
60 |
manually remove the 200 kde packages, and then run a |
61 |
manually-constructed emerge -1 with a bunch of individual packages on |
62 |
it? |
63 |
|
64 |
Obviously I'm just going to clench my teeth and run emerge -N anyway |
65 |
since spending 25 cpu-hours on pointless recompiles is less annoying |
66 |
than having those packages come up anytime I want to tweak a USE flag |
67 |
or whatever. |
68 |
|
69 |
All that said, the kde change is harmless and while it would have been |
70 |
better to coordinate it (or just introduce it in the next version), |
71 |
worse things could go wrong. |
72 |
|
73 |
I'm more concerned about the tendency to introduce flags in our |
74 |
package manager, have them get promoted in various forums, and then |
75 |
have people more-or-less rebuked for using them. There is no problem |
76 |
in having flags that shouldn't be routinely used, but man pages and |
77 |
such should clearly indicate when this is the case (as is the case |
78 |
with --unmerge and so on). If we don't warn people not to use a flag, |
79 |
we shouldn't punish them when they do. |
80 |
|
81 |
Rich |