[gentoo-dev] RFC: News item for net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package migration

[Thomas D.]

Hi,

some of you maybe know or already have noticed that the
net-firewall/shorewall* ebuilds were re-integrated into a new all-in-one
ebuild for easier maintenance.

The package is proxy-maintained.

While preparing the new ebuild I discussed with the proxy-maint team and
shorewall users if we should create a news item for that change.
Most people participating in the discussion thought that emerge's error
message like

> # emerge -p --update net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     U  ] net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2::gentoo [4.5.21.10-r1::gentoo] USE="doc init%* ipv4%* ipv6%* lite4%* -lite6%" 0 KiB
> [blocks B      ] net-firewall/shorewall-init ("net-firewall/shorewall-init" is blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
> [blocks B      ] net-firewall/shorewall-core ("net-firewall/shorewall-core" is blocking net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2)
>
> Total: 1 package (1 upgrade), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
> Conflict: 2 blocks (2 unsatisfied)
>
> !!! Multiple package instances within a single package slot have been pulled
> !!! into the dependency graph, resulting in a slot conflict:
>
> net-firewall/shorewall:0
>
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-4.6.6.2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>     net-firewall/shorewall::gentoo (Argument)
>
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     =net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1 required by (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>     ^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
> It may be possible to solve this problem by using package.mask to
> prevent one of those packages from being selected. However, it is also
> possible that conflicting dependencies exist such that they are
> impossible to satisfy simultaneously.  If such a conflict exists in
> the dependencies of two different packages, then those packages can
> not be installed simultaneously. You may want to try a larger value of
> the --backtrack option, such as --backtrack=30, in order to see if
> that will solve this conflict automatically.
>
> For more information, see MASKED PACKAGES section in the emerge man
> page or refer to the Gentoo Handbook.
>
>
>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
>
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-init-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     net-firewall/shorewall-init required by @selected
>
>   (net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>     =net-firewall/shorewall-core-4.5.21.10-r1 required by (net-firewall/shorewall-4.5.21.10-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>
>
> For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the following
> section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture is irrelevant):
>
> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages

should be clear enough for everyone.


Well, it turns out that not everyone understands the merge conflict and
knows what to do. Multiple users filled bugs and requested a news item,
two recent examples:

- https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=544216#c2
- https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539664#c2


As proxy-maintainer I changed my mind today and created a news item.
Mostly because it doesn't hurt anyone (no negative impact). It only
helps people who don't know what to do... and why shouldn't we help if
we can?

Please review my proposal below:

Just a few notes to explain my choice of words:

1) The news item will tell the user what has changed and why this change
   was made. Interested users can read the bug report for further
   information.

2) The given emerge command should work on all systems for every user.
   No need to check which package in detail they need to remove.
   No error messages like
     "--- Couldn't find 'net-firewall/shorewall-lite' to unmerge."
   because they didn't have shorewall-lite installed.

3) The last paragraph should indicate that the new shorewall ebuild is
   "stable" and that they don't have to react immediately but within the
   next 30-60 days if they don't want to upgrade now.


===========================================================================
Title: New net-firewall/shorewall all-in-one package
Author: Thomas D. <whissi@××××××.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2015-04-<to-be-set>
Revision: 1
News-Item-Format: 1.0
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-core
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-lite
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall6-lite
Display-If-Installed: net-firewall/shorewall-init

Starting with net-firewall/shorewall-4.6 we have re-integrated

  - net-firewall/shorewall-core
  - net-firewall/shorewall6
  - net-firewall/shorewall-lite
  - net-firewall/shorewall6-lite
  - net-firewall/shorewall-init

into a new all-in-one net-firewall/shorewall ebuild (see bug 522278).

The new all-in-one ebuild makes maintenance a lot more easier because
the package is proxy-maintained and finding someone who is willing to
help you bumping 6 packages each time you provide an update was not easy
in the past.

Because net-firewall/shorewall{-core,6,-lite,6-lite,init} is now
integrated in net-firewall/shorewall, we have to hard mask these old
ebuilds in the new monolithic ebuild to prevent file collisions.

Due to this block we cannot migrate to the new version without user
interaction. Please remove the previous split ebuilds from your system
if you want to upgrade:

  $ emerge --ask --unmerge 'net-firewall/shorewall-*' \
            'net-firewall/shorewall6*'


Please note:
Since the second shorewall-4.6 ebuild is now stabilized and
shorewall-4.5 is not compatible with the perl-5.20 (see bug 524558) we
will start the removal process for shorewall-4.5 ebuilds within the next
30 days.
===========================================================================


-Thomas