Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: patrick@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead?
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 00:12:34
Message-Id: 20131209011220.24a565cf@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? by Patrick Lauer
1 On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:34 +0800
2 Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote:
5 >
6 > > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as
7 > > the default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand
8 > > commits to fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package
9 > > is made. [1]
10 >
11 > Pff. Lazy.
12
13 Yes, but who is lazy here? The person that wants to commit the
14 dependency or the people whom depend on the implicit :* behavior?
15
16 Or someone else?
17
18 > > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it
19 > > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder,
20 > > can we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think?
21 >
22 > That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do
23 > more work.
24
25 Doing a smaller bit of useful work to spare out tons of useless work.
26
27 As part of a new EAPI it doesn't break. Why do you think so?
28
29 Why would this yields more work? The dependencies need to be checked
30 anyway as port of version bumps; so, better do them right at once.
31
32 > > If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to
33 > > change the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package
34 > > managers.
35 > >
36 > > Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to
37 > > apply. While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would
38 > > changing the default from :* to :0 break?
39 > >
40 > > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that
41 > > have no SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a
42 > > specific SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the
43 > > amount of commits needed here is low.
44 >
45 > And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages
46 > need to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just
47 > to hide your own laziness.
48
49 As per my first question of this reply, whose laziness do you mean?
50
51 > > Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do
52 > > with packages were the highest available version does not belong to
53 > > SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause
54 > > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look
55 > > closer into how we can alleviate this result.
56 >
57 > Yup, bad idea.
58
59 As part of a new EAPI the above is no longer necessary as the change
60 isn't done in place; furthermore, even if we don't do it as part
61 of a new EAPI repoman can cover this with a QA warning.
62
63 > 500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly?
64
65 Why do you think this idea makes things more complicated for everyone?
66
67 --
68 With kind regards,
69
70 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
71 Gentoo Developer
72
73 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
74 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
75 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature