1 |
Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
2 |
|
3 |
>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which |
4 |
>> would justify mask and removal. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary |
7 |
>> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch |
8 |
>> systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because |
9 |
>> of this. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The new xorg-servers could get package.masked until these major drivers |
13 |
> are available. |
14 |
> Albeit, I'm not intrested in pursuing this since with separate |
15 |
> xorg-server package, it's the drivers that need rebuilding against it, |
16 |
> and the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is keeping it in certain version until |
17 |
> the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is satisfied. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Poor example to make a case. |
20 |
|
21 |
VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on |
22 |
any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no |
23 |
matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to. |
24 |
|
25 |
> The intresting part of that document is "You should also not cause an |
26 |
> unnecessary downgrade for any "~arch" when ..." which also applies to |
27 |
> setting dependencies just as well. |
28 |
|
29 |
The downgrade is necessary to avoid user-visible breakage. |
30 |
And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Best regards, |
34 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |