1 |
On 3/29/06, Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:30:17 +0900 |
3 |
> Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:21, Marius Mauch wrote: |
6 |
> > > Marius Mauch schrieb: |
7 |
> > > > So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is |
8 |
> > > > a requirement for 2.1: enforcing dependencies needed to use the |
9 |
> > > > tree (see old threads or glep44 for reasoning). |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Can you summarise the reasoning again please? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> a) avoid massive breakage when certain new features are introduced |
14 |
> (past examples being cascading profiles or new-style virtuals) |
15 |
> b) similar to a) allow people to use new features without having to |
16 |
> wait for a year or two |
17 |
|
18 |
It's worth noting that the massive breakage (virtuals fex) can be |
19 |
dealt with a bit saner by writing robust code. The virtuals horkage |
20 |
during cache transfer being the prime example of that... |
21 |
|
22 |
> These docs will then tell the user about the following options |
23 |
> a) use the secret override |
24 |
|
25 |
This seems like a case where --force would be a helluva lot better |
26 |
then some random nasty env var that is documented on a webpage (assume |
27 |
the user has no browser due to bootstrapping the system without a web |
28 |
connection). |
29 |
|
30 |
> That should be an extreme exception though, there will be some rules |
31 |
> regarding format bumps (like "only use formats where that haven been |
32 |
> supported by stable portage for n months"). |
33 |
|
34 |
Knowing the rules up front would be useful to evaluate this patch's |
35 |
usefulness... |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |