1 |
Hi Daniel, |
2 |
|
3 |
Le 17/10/2009 01:29, Daniel Bradshaw a écrit : |
4 |
> So as I say, it occurs to me that most people probably follow some |
5 |
> variation of this selective upgrade method. |
6 |
> It might be handy to have some kind of metadata in the ebuilds that can be |
7 |
> used to indicate a package that is "demanding". |
8 |
> Then that flag could be used to highlight the package on a dep tree, or |
9 |
> optionally to block the emerge unless the package is specified explicitly. |
10 |
|
11 |
IMHO, we already have the infrastructure for such info. We have elog and |
12 |
news items. |
13 |
|
14 |
Now we (gentoo devs) are finally starting to add news items for bigger |
15 |
updates (gnome, X, java, etc) and that's a good thing. But we definitely |
16 |
cannot and should not use news items for minor upgrades. |
17 |
|
18 |
elog is much better suited for such upgrade notices. |
19 |
|
20 |
However, since elog was put in portage, ebuilds have been using |
21 |
elog/ewarn/einfo _way_ too much. We're now at a point where the elog |
22 |
output at the end of an emerge phase is just _useless_ because of all |
23 |
the noise. |
24 |
|
25 |
And with your metadata proposal, I'm worried the same thing will happen. |
26 |
Devs will enable the "troublesome" flag for a release, forget to remove |
27 |
it for the next bump and a few months later, half the packages in |
28 |
portage are labeled as such. |
29 |
|
30 |
I really don't want to sound like I want to kill your idea but I'm |
31 |
somewhat doubtful it'll really work given our track record with other |
32 |
such infrastructure. |
33 |
|
34 |
Cheers :) |
35 |
|
36 |
Rémi |