1 |
On Mon, 18 May 2009 21:08:25 +0200 |
2 |
Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> In terms of the on-disk result it's invariant, the result is what |
4 |
> you'd expect. There are intermediate stages that are "inconsistent" / |
5 |
> "unclean", but as these are known and temporary they are an |
6 |
> acceptable solution. |
7 |
|
8 |
No, they're temporary except when things go wrong, at which point |
9 |
there's no indication that they'll be fixed. |
10 |
|
11 |
> > It's unrealistic to assume that depclean's going to be accurate at |
12 |
> > every given moment, especially given Portage's massively |
13 |
> > overoptimistic treatment of slots. It's also a very bad idea to |
14 |
> > remove packages without the user explicitly giving permission to do |
15 |
> > so. |
16 |
> Which either means that the deps are wrong/incomplete or that portage |
17 |
> has algorithmic flaws which should be corrected. |
18 |
> I'd expect you to at least point to the relevant bugs and not just |
19 |
> state some emotional mumbo-jumbo. |
20 |
|
21 |
Look at the new slot deps in EAPI 3. |
22 |
|
23 |
> > Bah. I'm looking for a way of doing this properly, as I was before |
24 |
> > Zac went and broke blockers in Portage. |
25 |
> s/broke/fixed/ |
26 |
|
27 |
No, broke. What he did was in direct violation of PMS and in direct |
28 |
violation of assumptions made by many packages. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > * work by explaining the reason for the blocker, rather than sort-of |
31 |
> > stating the expected resolution. |
32 |
> That's dumb ;) (Sorry, emotional statement) |
33 |
> I mean, it does not help to solve the issue and requires user |
34 |
> interaction where an automated solution has been working reliably for |
35 |
> quite some time. |
36 |
|
37 |
Uhm. Knowing the reason for the block lets the package manager solve |
38 |
the problem in the most intelligent available way. Merely being sort-of |
39 |
told the expected resolution does not. |
40 |
|
41 |
> > * provide mechanisms for explaining the block in detail to the user, |
42 |
> > along with instructions on how to resolve it. |
43 |
> User interaction where automated resolution works sounds like a step |
44 |
> backwards to me. Maybe refining the rules for automated resolution |
45 |
> would be a more appropriate solution? |
46 |
|
47 |
Automated resolution is not always possible or a good idea. Also, |
48 |
having more information available for the user and being able to |
49 |
suggest an automated resolution are not in the least bit contradictory. |
50 |
|
51 |
> > * be based around tree requirements, not some side effects of some |
52 |
> > code someone happened to write without considering the implications. |
53 |
> |
54 |
> What is a tree requirement? (Nice buzzword btw) |
55 |
|
56 |
A tree requirement is one that comes about as a result of studying what |
57 |
ebuilds do now and what they'd like to do in the future, rather than |
58 |
one that comes around based upon what someone happens to code. |
59 |
|
60 |
> And as many devs and users benefit quite a lot from the portage |
61 |
> solution, which zmedico did not dream up without thinking about the |
62 |
> impact on users, I find it very rude and condescending of you to |
63 |
> disrespect the solution without offering an alternative. |
64 |
|
65 |
...except for the things that it broke, which necessitated shoving !! |
66 |
blocks in at the last minute. And I'll remind you that there were |
67 |
discussions about a proper blocker solution before Zac went and did his |
68 |
thing, and the overwhelming view was that a solution based around the |
69 |
things I've been discussing was what was wanted. |
70 |
|
71 |
> As you seem to understand the problem domain I'd expect a coherent |
72 |
> unambiguous proposal instead of vague accusations and emotional terms |
73 |
> that do not help in any way to improve the situation. |
74 |
|
75 |
See the discussions we had back when the only kind of blocker was a |
76 |
hard, single ! block. |
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
Ciaran McCreesh |