Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:36:57
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots by Ciaran McCreesh
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 10:16:42 -0700 > Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: >> I don't think the documentation forbids what these developers are >> doing. > > > > "This means that counting goes as follows: 1.0 (initial version), > 1.0-r1, 1.0-r2, etc." > > It's not illegal, but it's also not in line with how versions and slots > have interacted up until now.
I agree and I sympathize with your position.
> >> I think you implemented a nice heuristic for your users in your >> resolver that used to work because slots had a typical set of users >> cases and the heuristic performed well in those cases. >> >> Now people are occasionally using slots in a different way and your >> heuristic penalizes those cases. That sucks, but you might have to >> actually change your resolver because I don't think 'funky-slots' >> properties is going to garner much adoption. > > You mean, instead of implementing trivial marking, which takes > developers a few seconds, you want to screw over users? I think that > says a lot about Gentoo's attitude...
I don't think portage has the behavior that paludis does, so most users are not likely to experience this particular problem. You know as well as I that the marking isn't necessarily trivial. Its another thing we have to document and train people to use. I don't think users get 'screwed over' either. It could be that instead of Gentoo tagging a bunch of ebuilds, you just change your resolver heuristic a bit. -A
> > -- > Ciaran McCreesh


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>