| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 21:19 -0700, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Unfortunately, -l doesn't work for downgrades, which except for important |
| 3 |
> packages (including hotplug, I was **NOT** caught unaware by this change), |
| 4 |
> is the place I'd be most able to use it. Why is this package wanting to |
| 5 |
> downgrade? Is it a security issue or just that someone reported a problem |
| 6 |
> in my current version that doesn't affect me, and the package was |
| 7 |
> therefore de-keyworded, but since it's already merged and working fine |
| 8 |
> here, it's safe to keep? That sort of info should be in the changelog and |
| 9 |
> usually is, but -l won't show it because the version difference is |
| 10 |
> negative. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Could portage be fixed such that -l worked on the absolute value instead, |
| 13 |
> or in the event of a negative version delta, displayed the last X entries |
| 14 |
> pertaining to either the installed or the new version? That would allow |
| 15 |
> it to catch most downgrade log entries. Also, printing out any related |
| 16 |
> entries in package.mask would be quite helpful. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Actually, that would definitely be something that would be nice to see. |
| 19 |
There is already code in portage for this, in a way. Here's an example: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
# emerge drpython |
| 22 |
Calculating dependencies |
| 23 |
!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "drpython" have been masked. |
| 24 |
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your |
| 25 |
request: |
| 26 |
- dev-python/drpython-3.6.10 (masked by: package.mask) |
| 27 |
# <lucass@g.o> (15 Nov 2004) |
| 28 |
# Masking due to dependency on wxpython-2.5 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Now, the only problem with this, is this information would never be |
| 31 |
displayed unless *all* versions were masked. If it is a forced |
| 32 |
downgrade, this would not be shown. I'm not sure exactly how one would |
| 33 |
go about determining whether or not to show this information. I guess |
| 34 |
some logic would have to be added to have portage display the reason for |
| 35 |
it deciding to downgrade a package, whether by a removed keyword or |
| 36 |
package.mask. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> As it is, I often end up loading the various logs and/or package.mask |
| 39 |
> manually, to see why the downgrade. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
As do I. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 45 |
Release Engineering - Operational/QA Manager |
| 46 |
Games - Developer |
| 47 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives