Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Plausible idea for GLEP 19?

[Marius Mauch]

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 14:55:48 -0600
Mikey <mikey@×××××××××××.com> wrote:

> Users are discouraged from changing make.globals.  It would be better
> to implement in make.conf or as a command line option to emerge
> itself.  It is a configuration item for a user preference, not a
> (global) portage preference...

Ehm, did you read that comment you posted? make.conf overrides
make.globals, so you don't have a point here.

> > Which except for the SLOT issues are all fixed as far as I'm
> > concernced.
>
> That is not a small issue.

portage itself has similar issues with SLOTs

> > That's not really what you want.
> > -s updates might (will) be overlaid with version or revision bumps
> > from time to time, for this to be of any use it has to happen at the
> > resolver level (visiblity filter).
>
> "Normal" emerges would take -s2 over -r1 or -s1.  The change is
> transparent when not in "glsa-only" mode.

You didn't understand what I said. If you just play around with the
output info you'll miss updates.

> > Everything but the last one is already possible. For the last one
> > you currently have to read the changelog.
>
> It does not allow for backporting, it is not safe to use in an
> automated environment, it does not work in a production environment,
> and it does not scale well.

Sorry? What prevents anyone from doing backports? It's as safe as your
idea for both automatic and manual (unless you assume that all security
updates will only ever be a -sX bump), and the last two are just random
comments that don't mean anything.

Anyway, showed you why it won't work and why it won't get implemented,
so rather pointless to continue this.

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.