| 1 |
Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> And again, downgrade of dependencies it is not against any rule which |
| 4 |
>> would justify mask and removal. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Another example from the X.org packages, installing the proprietary |
| 7 |
>> ATI/NVidia drivers will cause downgrades for xorg-server on ~arch |
| 8 |
>> systems. Nobody in his right mind is proposing to treeclean them because |
| 9 |
>> of this. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The new xorg-servers could get package.masked until these major drivers |
| 13 |
> are available. |
| 14 |
> Albeit, I'm not intrested in pursuing this since with separate |
| 15 |
> xorg-server package, it's the drivers that need rebuilding against it, |
| 16 |
> and the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is keeping it in certain version until |
| 17 |
> the VIDEO_CARDS="" setting is satisfied. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Poor example to make a case. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
VIDEO_CARDS is just for user convenience. run "emerge nvidia-drivers" on |
| 22 |
any system with xorg-server-1.11 installed and it will downgrade, no |
| 23 |
matter what VIDEO_CARDS is set to. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> The intresting part of that document is "You should also not cause an |
| 26 |
> unnecessary downgrade for any "~arch" when ..." which also applies to |
| 27 |
> setting dependencies just as well. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The downgrade is necessary to avoid user-visible breakage. |
| 30 |
And the wording clearly does only apply to package removals. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Best regards, |
| 34 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives