| 1 |
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 10:59:48PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Said single inheritance protection was added 06/05/06 (rev 3544), |
| 4 |
> > stabled for x86 roughly 06/22/06. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Hasn't even yet made it to a release media- meaning folk installing |
| 7 |
> > from the most current release media still can get bit in the ass by |
| 8 |
> > switching to an N parent from the get go. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm not sure what the probability of people hurting themselves like |
| 11 |
> this is. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Probably is related to how quickly N profile is uptaken, how |
| 14 |
widespread, and (assuming it's used to do base profile, and shallow |
| 15 |
decoration, gnome specific fex) ordering of the base profile vs the |
| 16 |
shallow profile. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Perhaps it's a negligible corner case and a note in the |
| 20 |
> upgrade guide will be enough to keep the vast majority of users on |
| 21 |
> the right track. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Upgrade guide being what, profile deprecated notices? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I'd hope that a user would be wise enough to read |
| 26 |
> some docs prior to switching to a new profile with a potentially |
| 27 |
> outdated version of portage. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
And users hope that the developers don't leave land mines around :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This *can* be one helluva land mine; I already listed ways to at least |
| 32 |
manually address it from a dev standpoint (forced portage deps in each |
| 33 |
branch). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Like I said in the last email (and was snipped from the response), |
| 36 |
this needs to level additional protective measures to avoid users |
| 37 |
getting bit- it should be seemless (well aware that's not always |
| 38 |
easy). |
| 39 |
~harring |
Archives