Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Vlastimil Babka <caster@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: java@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Problems with the new "no downgrades"
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:58:09
Message-Id: 47FB5DCE.4040708@gentoo.org
1 *portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)
2
3 04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
4 2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
5 since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
6 as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
7 else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
8 unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.
9
10 Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about packages
11 masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this also to
12 keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?
13
14 For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
15 with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
16 released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. So
17 I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially if
18 something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use slotmove
19 because changing slot in java package means also changing where it's
20 installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, downgrade won't
21 happen. I think it's not good.
22
23 VB
24 --
25 gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list

Replies