| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:07:53 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:00 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 04:18:40 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 9 |
> >> >>> I also planned to release a news through the portage news system as soon as I |
| 10 |
> >> >>> lastrite xchat so people know how to move over to hexchat. As I never did this |
| 11 |
> >> >>> before I'd like to have some help concerning this matter. Is there some |
| 12 |
> >> >>> documentation about portage news? |
| 13 |
> >> >> |
| 14 |
> >> >> use profiles/updates/ to move xchat to hexchat ... |
| 15 |
> >> > |
| 16 |
> >> > I don't think a package move is appropriate since the two packages |
| 17 |
> >> > install different files. The installed files would not be updated, |
| 18 |
> >> > just the vdb. |
| 19 |
> >> |
| 20 |
> >> ... which portage will happily "upgrade" next time you `emerge -u world` |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Hmm, like 'move sys-fs/udev sys-apps/systemd'? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> i think the difference here is that we all agree that everyone wants |
| 25 |
> to upgrade from xchat to hexchat |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Maybe. On the other hand, the udev->systemd switch was performed |
| 28 |
upstream which makes it a valid candidate for package move. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
xchat & hexchat are different packages. It's a bit like pretending that |
| 31 |
the discontinuation and fork didn't ever happen, and the packages are |
| 32 |
equivalent (which they are not, as have been already pointed out). |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
IMO considering the fact that user needs to migrate his configuration |
| 35 |
by hand, making the switch automagic is not helpful at all. It's rather |
| 36 |
confusing when 'xchat' instantly becomes 'hexchat' which it is actually |
| 37 |
not before the rebuild. And after the rebuild user suffers the usual |
| 38 |
upgrade pain of packages changing heavily between versions. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
So, please do not hack the updates mechanism around to achieve minor |
| 41 |
goals. It should be used to move packages which suffered a rename |
| 42 |
or merge, not to provide replacements and suggestions. For those, |
| 43 |
package.mask messages are much better. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
-- |
| 46 |
Best regards, |
| 47 |
Michał Górny |
Archives