Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Rémi Cardona" <remi@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:33:59
Message-Id: 4AD9571A.8010602@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is? by Daniel Bradshaw
1 Hi Daniel,
2
3 Le 17/10/2009 01:29, Daniel Bradshaw a écrit :
4 > So as I say, it occurs to me that most people probably follow some
5 > variation of this selective upgrade method.
6 > It might be handy to have some kind of metadata in the ebuilds that can be
7 > used to indicate a package that is "demanding".
8 > Then that flag could be used to highlight the package on a dep tree, or
9 > optionally to block the emerge unless the package is specified explicitly.
10
11 IMHO, we already have the infrastructure for such info. We have elog and
12 news items.
13
14 Now we (gentoo devs) are finally starting to add news items for bigger
15 updates (gnome, X, java, etc) and that's a good thing. But we definitely
16 cannot and should not use news items for minor upgrades.
17
18 elog is much better suited for such upgrade notices.
19
20 However, since elog was put in portage, ebuilds have been using
21 elog/ewarn/einfo _way_ too much. We're now at a point where the elog
22 output at the end of an emerge phase is just _useless_ because of all
23 the noise.
24
25 And with your metadata proposal, I'm worried the same thing will happen.
26 Devs will enable the "troublesome" flag for a release, forget to remove
27 it for the next bump and a few months later, half the packages in
28 portage are labeled as such.
29
30 I really don't want to sound like I want to kill your idea but I'm
31 somewhat doubtful it'll really work given our track record with other
32 such infrastructure.
33
34 Cheers :)
35
36 Rémi

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is? Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o>