1 |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 01:24:49PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> Hi everyone, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Currently, portage only allows single inheritance in profiles, but |
5 |
> it's easy to enable multiple inheritance. In order to do this, we |
6 |
> only need to unconstrain the number of parents allowed in the parent |
7 |
> file (only 1 is currently allowed). When a parent file contains |
8 |
> multiple parents, parents listed later if the file will have the |
9 |
> ability to override those listed earlier in the file. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Multiple inheritance seems like it would add useful flexibility to |
12 |
> the profile structure. |
13 |
|
14 |
Unfortunately, portages long time handling of N parents sucks. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Should we remove the single inheritance |
17 |
> constraint and allow multiple inheritance? |
18 |
|
19 |
Said single inheritance protection was added 06/05/06 (rev 3544), |
20 |
stabled for x86 roughly 06/22/06. |
21 |
|
22 |
Hasn't even yet made it to a release media- meaning folk installing |
23 |
from the most current release media still can get bit in the ass by |
24 |
switching to an N parent from the get go. |
25 |
|
26 |
So... basic question is how this is actually going to protect users |
27 |
from stumbling into it? |
28 |
|
29 |
There *are* a lot of folk who let things linger, and 2.1 (not 2.1.1 |
30 |
holding said rev) held the major reason to upgrade, 2.1.1 being just |
31 |
bug fixups. Point I'm trying to get across here is that there are |
32 |
still going to be a fair chunk of folk lacking the protection; combine |
33 |
that with the long standing capability to nag users to upgrade their |
34 |
profiles, and you've got the core reason this support isn't already in |
35 |
portage- if a user upgrades without the protection, they wind up with |
36 |
only half of the profile (best case). |
37 |
|
38 |
Move forward with it, but even if support exists, it still must sit |
39 |
for long enough to avoid screwing over anyone but the biggest |
40 |
slackers- this would include ensuring that the appropriate portage dep |
41 |
is in both branches; do that, and you've minimized it as much as |
42 |
possible. |
43 |
|
44 |
So... what's the plan in that regard? |
45 |
~harring |