| 1 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 10:34:15 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:03:02 -0400 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 7:34:57 PM EDT you wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:18:32 -0400 |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 6:08:41 PM EDT Michał Górny wrote: |
| 10 |
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:48:53 -0400 |
| 11 |
> > > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > > Portage shows the repo it comes from because it is necessary for |
| 13 |
> > > > > the package specification to be unique, i.e. two repositories can |
| 14 |
> > > > > provide the same version of the same package. |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > It does not have to show it for that function. Showing the repo is a |
| 17 |
> > > > visual |
| 18 |
> > > > thing for the user during merge output. Portage does not have to have |
| 19 |
> > > > ANY |
| 20 |
> > > > output to do its job. Visual output is a user thing. |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > Excuse me but what is your goal here? I stated the rationale for that |
| 23 |
> > > particular change. Your disagreement won't change why it was done. |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > What is your goal? Your assumption is wrong, this change is clearly visual |
| 26 |
> > only... |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Bug #510538: Include "::repository" in more messages. |
| 29 |
> > https://github.com/gentoo/portage/commit/ |
| 30 |
> > 3f110090e50207d4ae3f6031ce6b1beafc80de46 |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > Not technical purely visual... |
| 33 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=510538 |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> We could start with the fact that we're talking of two different |
| 36 |
> changes. I was talking of the *original* change that started |
| 37 |
> introducing repository name in various parts of output. You're talking |
| 38 |
> about a followup commit. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
It is not my fault your are talking about something else. I know the point I |
| 41 |
was making, visua. Thus the -bin suffix, visual. You said PMS, and now trying to |
| 42 |
connect the dots. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> Now, let me explain this to you. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
Why do you feel it is your place to go around explaining things to people? |
| 47 |
Surely when you miss the point, and are talking about something different. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> The goal for ::repository output is to |
| 50 |
> provide minimal package identifiers that can be used to 100% uniquely |
| 51 |
> identify packages. As in, you see 'emerge -pv' output, you copy-paste |
| 52 |
> the package from it and you get a guarantee that emerge will select |
| 53 |
> the same package from the same repository. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
If I find the original commit, it will say what you are? Outputting the repo on |
| 56 |
merge so you can copy and paste is the only rational to that visual change. |
| 57 |
How do you copy and paste on a server without means for such? That would be an |
| 58 |
interesting justification for such change. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> Yes, it's purely visual. However, this visual change was motivated by |
| 61 |
> an intent to provide functionally useful output. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
No its a PMS requirement as you said not visual as I was saying... |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
> As a side note, Portage for some time did limit ::repository output to |
| 66 |
> non-Gentoo repositories only. This was changed later in order to reduce |
| 67 |
> the use of 'main repository' and make Portage less tied to the old |
| 68 |
> Gentoo layout. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Thank your for that explanation. I had no idea what the change was for after |
| 71 |
reading the bug and commit. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Having done both I am not sure even your explanation is correct... |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives