1 |
On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as the |
4 |
> default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand commits to |
5 |
> fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package is made. [1] |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
Pff. Lazy. |
9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
|
12 |
> When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it |
13 |
> affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, can |
14 |
> we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? |
15 |
|
16 |
That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do more |
17 |
work. |
18 |
|
19 |
> If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to change |
20 |
> the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package managers. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to apply. |
23 |
> While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would changing |
24 |
> the default from :* to :0 break? |
25 |
> |
26 |
> One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that have no |
27 |
> SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a specific |
28 |
> SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the amount of |
29 |
> commits needed here is low. |
30 |
|
31 |
And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages need |
32 |
to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just to hide |
33 |
your own laziness. |
34 |
|
35 |
> Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do |
36 |
> with packages were the highest available version does not belong to |
37 |
> SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause |
38 |
> breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look |
39 |
> closer into how we can alleviate this result. |
40 |
|
41 |
Yup, bad idea. |
42 |
|
43 |
500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly? |