| 1 |
Enrico Weigelt wrote: |
| 2 |
> <big_snip /> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> My problem still seems unsolved (or did I miss something) ? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Lets say, if I've, installed foo-1.1, and it gets masked due |
| 7 |
> some bug(s), but 1.0 isn't, I want to get informed with an big |
| 8 |
> fat warning, *before* anything actually done, ie. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> [...] |
| 11 |
> # WARNING: installed package foo-1.1 has been masked and would |
| 12 |
> # be downgraded: |
| 13 |
> # <masking comment ...> |
| 14 |
> [...] |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> An fully-automatic downgrade should *never* downgrade anything. |
| 17 |
> This is too dangerous, because essential features can get lost. |
| 18 |
> Again, my bugzilla example: assuming 2.22 will be unmasked some |
| 19 |
> day and I installed it w/ postgres support. Now there are some |
| 20 |
> bugs found, but not fixed fast enough, so it gets masked. |
| 21 |
> I run an update w/o knowing that it downgrades, and my whole |
| 22 |
> bugzilla hosting is suddenly broken. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Do you consider this as stability, seriously ?! |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If your bugzilla hosting breaks with lower versions, then the ebuild contains a |
| 27 |
RDEPEND="postgres? ( >=dev-db/postgresql-2.22 )". Now if >=postgresql-2.22 gets |
| 28 |
masked, portage will bail out with an error because it can't find a valid |
| 29 |
dependency tree. This will cause the comment above the masking line in p.mask to |
| 30 |
be shown. You can then decide whether the breakage affects you or not and |
| 31 |
depending on that unmask it locally or remove your bugzilla installation. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If there is a bugzilla-ebuild which works with <postgresql-2.22, it will be |
| 34 |
downgraded too, leaving you with a working bugzilla. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
I can't quite see the massive problem. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Kind Regards, |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Simon Stelling |
| 42 |
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer |
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives