Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:51:12 +0300
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
packages.

> 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.

- Samuli


Replies:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
References:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
-- Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Next by thread:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild
Next by date:
Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-im/qutecom: metadata.xml ChangeLog qutecom-2.2_p20110210.ebuild


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.