| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:52 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 21:42:14 Michael Weber wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Um, what happend to the policy to not f*** around with stable ebuilds? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I think there is a legitimate issue with changing dependencies on |
| 9 |
stable ebuilds. If for whatever reason a mistake is made, you just |
| 10 |
broke tons of stable systems - especially if people rebuild with -N. |
| 11 |
The idea is that stuff goes through testing before it hits stable, |
| 12 |
which is why we call it stable. If you change stable directly, then |
| 13 |
it isn't stable. :) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>>> I see a violation of this rule at least on [glibc-]2.13-r4, which |
| 17 |
>>> leads to useless rebuilds on `emerge -avuND world` on every single |
| 18 |
>>> gentoo install world-wide. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> i don't have too much compassion for -N. if people really care enough |
| 21 |
>> about it, they'd read the ChangeLog and see that it is meaningless. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Until somebody posts a definitive list of which features we have |
| 24 |
compassion on, and which ones we don't, we should have compassion on |
| 25 |
anybody using standard portage features. It seems like when things go |
| 26 |
wrong with somebody's box the knee-jerk reaction is to say "well, you |
| 27 |
should be running daily emerge -alphabetsoup world" where alphabetsoup |
| 28 |
tends to vary by individual preference. I do recall some talk a few |
| 29 |
months ago about how it might not hurt to come up with a |
| 30 |
best-practices suggestion for doing regular upgrades, but it hasn't |
| 31 |
happened yet. I'm pretty sure -N was one of the items that was tossed |
| 32 |
around as a best practice. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> I'm not going to complain much about a mere single package, glibc, |
| 35 |
> triggering a -N rebuild. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> But I'm not going to complain about gentoo/kde doing it with 200-ish, |
| 38 |
> either (way more if I had all of kde installed, I don't), for several |
| 39 |
> reasons: |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> 1) I'm not only running ~arch, I'm running the overlay. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I'm running stable amd64 and the same kde issue directly hit stable. |
| 44 |
Oh, this is two days after the version bump hit stable - so that is |
| 45 |
200 packages twice in two days. So, I will point out that this could |
| 46 |
have been better coordinated, although the extra rebuilds are |
| 47 |
harmless. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> 3) Mike's right. The -N is simply available to give users a way to be |
| 50 |
> notified of such changes if they wish to be, presumably thru use of -p or |
| 51 |
> -a. It DOESN'T mean they have to actually do the remerge, as they can |
| 52 |
> either choose to ignore -N and not use it entirely, thus remaining |
| 53 |
> blissfully unaware of such changes, or use it simply as notification, go |
| 54 |
> look at the logs and see what the change was about, and decide based on |
| 55 |
> that whether it's worth the remerge. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
So, suppose I don't want to update those 200 kde packages, but I don't |
| 58 |
want to ignore the odd package that does come up in -N in the future? |
| 59 |
Do I just run a daily emerge -puDN world, look at the output, then |
| 60 |
manually remove the 200 kde packages, and then run a |
| 61 |
manually-constructed emerge -1 with a bunch of individual packages on |
| 62 |
it? |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Obviously I'm just going to clench my teeth and run emerge -N anyway |
| 65 |
since spending 25 cpu-hours on pointless recompiles is less annoying |
| 66 |
than having those packages come up anytime I want to tweak a USE flag |
| 67 |
or whatever. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
All that said, the kde change is harmless and while it would have been |
| 70 |
better to coordinate it (or just introduce it in the next version), |
| 71 |
worse things could go wrong. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
I'm more concerned about the tendency to introduce flags in our |
| 74 |
package manager, have them get promoted in various forums, and then |
| 75 |
have people more-or-less rebuked for using them. There is no problem |
| 76 |
in having flags that shouldn't be routinely used, but man pages and |
| 77 |
such should clearly indicate when this is the case (as is the case |
| 78 |
with --unmerge and so on). If we don't warn people not to use a flag, |
| 79 |
we shouldn't punish them when they do. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
Rich |
Archives