| 1 |
Am 17.02.2014 09:06, schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 19:11:12 Sebastian Luther wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 05.02.2014 09:03, schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 4 |
>>> On Saturday, February 01, 2014 20:38:05 Arfrever Frehtes |
| 5 |
>>> Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> this i'm not so sure about. when you have a local overlay, |
| 8 |
>>> portage complains when there are no masters which means most |
| 9 |
>>> people have just blindly added "masters = gentoo". but if they |
| 10 |
>>> have packages in there using the old name (on purpose), then |
| 11 |
>>> updates will constantly tromp on that. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> The old behavior was to always apply the updates from ::gentoo as |
| 14 |
>> long as the repo didn't have its own updates. This means it |
| 15 |
>> doesn't matter if the repo sets the "masters = gentoo" as long as |
| 16 |
>> it doesn't contain updates. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> ok, i thought it always ignored the gentoo updates dir |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
At least that's what Arfrever wrote in the first mail as 'old |
| 21 |
behavior'. I assume that's correct. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>>> at least, there should be one of: - one-time automatic |
| 25 |
>>> migration of existing layout.conf files where we set |
| 26 |
>>> "updates-master =" for them. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> How do you know if it's the user's repo or a layman repo, where |
| 29 |
>> layout.conf is manged by other people? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> you ask layman. this isn't difficult. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
layman was just an example. The user could as well have cloned a repo |
| 34 |
by hand. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
When you said "one-time automatic migration" I thought of an update |
| 37 |
during portage installation (like it's done for other things). Do you |
| 38 |
have something else in mind? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>>> - a warning phase where we complain if the field isn't set, and |
| 42 |
>>> we default to current behavior. once some time has elapsed, we |
| 43 |
>>> stop warning and we change the default. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> Be sure to only hit users which are really affected by the |
| 46 |
>> change (i.e. repos with existing updates and master repos which |
| 47 |
>> contain updates, which affect packages in the repo). |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> doing it based on the current set of affected packages doens't make |
| 50 |
> sense then the set of possible updates is constantly changing |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
It's true that it may change, but this should only happen very seldom |
| 53 |
and only during the transition period. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
The idea is that if you don't restrict the warning like that, you're |
| 56 |
going to create a lot of noise. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> -mike |
| 59 |
> |
Archives