| 1 |
On 01/19/2012 05:56 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Duncan<1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Mike Frysinger posted on Wed, 18 Jan 2012 22:00:52 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> On Wednesday 18 January 2012 21:42:14 Michael Weber wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> Um, what happend to the policy to not f*** around with stable ebuilds? |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think there is a legitimate issue with changing dependencies on |
| 10 |
> stable ebuilds. If for whatever reason a mistake is made, you just |
| 11 |
> broke tons of stable systems - especially if people rebuild with -N. |
| 12 |
> The idea is that stuff goes through testing before it hits stable, |
| 13 |
> which is why we call it stable. If you change stable directly, then |
| 14 |
> it isn't stable. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Care certainly needs to be taken. However, for things like eclass |
| 17 |
changes, there may be no choice but to modify the metadata of all eclass |
| 18 |
consumers (regardless of stable keywords). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> I see a violation of this rule at least on [glibc-]2.13-r4, which |
| 22 |
>>>> leads to useless rebuilds on `emerge -avuND world` on every single |
| 23 |
>>>> gentoo install world-wide. |
| 24 |
>>> |
| 25 |
>>> i don't have too much compassion for -N. if people really care enough |
| 26 |
>>> about it, they'd read the ChangeLog and see that it is meaningless. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Until somebody posts a definitive list of which features we have |
| 29 |
> compassion on, and which ones we don't, we should have compassion on |
| 30 |
> anybody using standard portage features. It seems like when things go |
| 31 |
> wrong with somebody's box the knee-jerk reaction is to say "well, you |
| 32 |
> should be running daily emerge -alphabetsoup world" where alphabetsoup |
| 33 |
> tends to vary by individual preference. I do recall some talk a few |
| 34 |
> months ago about how it might not hurt to come up with a |
| 35 |
> best-practices suggestion for doing regular upgrades, but it hasn't |
| 36 |
> happened yet. I'm pretty sure -N was one of the items that was tossed |
| 37 |
> around as a best practice. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
The fact is, the user is not being forced to rebuild anything. They can |
| 41 |
simply run full system updates with --newuse less often if it puts too |
| 42 |
much strain on them. It holds back progress for everyone if developers |
| 43 |
have to try to avoid making changes that trigger --newuse rebuilds. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> I'm more concerned about the tendency to introduce flags in our |
| 46 |
> package manager, have them get promoted in various forums, and then |
| 47 |
> have people more-or-less rebuked for using them. There is no problem |
| 48 |
> in having flags that shouldn't be routinely used, but man pages and |
| 49 |
> such should clearly indicate when this is the case (as is the case |
| 50 |
> with --unmerge and so on). If we don't warn people not to use a flag, |
| 51 |
> we shouldn't punish them when they do. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
It's only perceived as punishment to a person who is compelled to run a |
| 55 |
full system update with --newuse, but is unhappy with the number of |
| 56 |
packages it will cause to be rebuilt. As said, they can run updates less |
| 57 |
often if it's too much strain. |
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Thanks, |
| 60 |
Zac |
Archives