| 1 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> Vlastimil Babka kirjoitti: |
| 3 |
>> *portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008) |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> 04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild: |
| 6 |
>> 2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has |
| 7 |
>> since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade |
| 8 |
>> as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or |
| 9 |
>> else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an |
| 10 |
>> unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about |
| 13 |
>> packages masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this |
| 14 |
>> also to keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed? |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6 |
| 17 |
>> with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and |
| 18 |
>> released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. |
| 19 |
>> So I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially |
| 20 |
>> if something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use |
| 21 |
>> slotmove because changing slot in java package means also changing |
| 22 |
>> where it's installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, |
| 23 |
>> downgrade won't happen. I think it's not good. |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> VB |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> You can use atoms like <dev-java/swt-3.4_alpha:3 to force it |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
OK that solves my problem, thanks. |
| 30 |
But in general case I think it's still wrong. Package is found to be |
| 31 |
broken, gets p.masked, but people will keep the masked version and not |
| 32 |
downgrade. And because it doesn't even warn about that fact, they won't |
| 33 |
even know! |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Caster |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives