| 1 |
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:39:13 +0100 |
| 2 |
Thomas Matthijs <axxo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> * Daniel (dragonheart@g.o) wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > step 4. |
| 7 |
> > package.move torsmo -> conky |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This will do _bad_ things if someone has both installed |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Bah, here it's ~ okay because torsmo versions are lower than the |
| 13 |
ones of conky: after the move, there will be two conky packages |
| 14 |
installed in the same SLOT, and thus the oldest one (actually |
| 15 |
torsmo) will get autocleaned soon after by emerge. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I still don't really see the benefit of the package.move related |
| 19 |
steps though. Moving from torsmo to conky will require some manual |
| 20 |
work by the users anyway (~/.xinitrc change, new config location, |
| 21 |
etc.), and doing half the job automagically at some arbitrary time |
| 22 |
just adds confusion for users: |
| 23 |
- those who will have notice the package.mask comments during the |
| 24 |
wait after step 1 will already have done the full transition by |
| 25 |
themselves. |
| 26 |
- those who didn't will just see their torsmo binary suddenly |
| 27 |
disapearing (and given their unlikely visibility, i don't think |
| 28 |
einfos in conky ebuild solve that), which imo is worst than just |
| 29 |
keeping an obsolete package installed. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Imho, package.move should only be used for changes that are |
| 32 |
strictly internal to the portage tree, and not for those which |
| 33 |
"break" users' applications. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
So i still prefer the simpler, usual, deprecation plan, like what |
| 36 |
was done for xawdecode->xdtv for instance, despite they were |
| 37 |
also sharing the same code base (an upstream name change actually): |
| 38 |
1. package.mask torsmo with a comment about conky |
| 39 |
2. wait long enough |
| 40 |
3. drop torsmo from the tree |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
TGL. |
| 44 |
-- |
| 45 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives