On 10/03/2011 12:37 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Samuli Suominen schrieb:
>>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which
>>> would justify mask and removal.
>>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary
>>> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch
>>> systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because
>>> of this.
>> The new xorg-servers could get package.masked until these major drivers
>> are available.
>> Albeit, I'm not intrested in pursuing this since with separate
>> xorg-server package, it's the drivers that need rebuilding against it,
>> and the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is keeping it in certain version until
>> the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is satisfied.
>> Poor example to make a case.
> VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on
> any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no
> matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to.
And your point is? The drivers will need to be rebuilt everytime the
xorg-server version changes. This does not come as a suprise, the
.ebuild should print a message about rebuilding them. If it doesn't,
then the .ebuild should get fixed.
Leaving this particular case for X.org maintainers to decide sounds fine
to me, given the relaxing factors.
>> The intresting part of that document is "You should also not cause an
>> unnecessary downgrade for any "~arch" when ..." which also applies to
>> setting dependencies just as well.
> The downgrade is necessary to avoid user-visible breakage.
Avoiding one in non-system critical package (like qutecom), but
introducing multiple new scenarios in what-could-be system-critical
> And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals.
The fact that the *common sense* snippet was inserted in this document,
but isn't documented else where... doesn't make it any less true.