| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:57 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Another thing that strikes me is separation of stable vs ~arch behavior. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> This applies in particular with in-place eclass alterations. Users on |
| 6 |
> ~arch should normally expect more activity (in particular number of |
| 7 |
> builds and changes, that is after all its definition). Stable users on |
| 8 |
> the other hand might want slower update cycle for non-security upgrades. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Reading this thread I got hit with a question whether this boundary is |
| 11 |
> properly protected if doing in-place eclass changes? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This isn't about whether an eclass used by stable packages are allowed |
| 14 |
to be modified or not. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This is about what has to be done AFTER an eclass is modified, so that |
| 17 |
users won't run into problems down the road. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Today developers are modifying eclass RDEPENDs and not bumping |
| 20 |
anything. This impacts stable users, but it can do so in ways that |
| 21 |
cause their systems to break months down the road in ways that are |
| 22 |
hard to troubleshoot. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
With the proposal when an eclass is changed the user will get a |
| 25 |
rebuild, but they won't get the mysterious breakage. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I'm not sure that we're doing stable users a favor by not "disturbing" |
| 28 |
them with rebuilds but instead we're just silently breaking their |
| 29 |
systems in subtle ways. I think that if anybody would benefit from a |
| 30 |
more conservative approach it would be the stable users. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm all for having a separate discussion around when it is and isn't |
| 33 |
appropriate to modify eclasses that are used by stable packages in the |
| 34 |
first place. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives