1 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 06:44:33PM +0200, Fabian Zeindl wrote: |
2 |
> Hi |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I'm using gentoo and the best package manager of the world for over one year |
5 |
> now, and I'm quite satisfied :-). |
6 |
> One idea I had: I regularly stumble across ebuilds which are masked in |
7 |
> package.mask because they break certain other packages or something like that. |
8 |
> It would be genial if portage wouldn't just say |
9 |
> "this ebuild is masked cause it breaks XYZ", but detect whether I have XYZ |
10 |
> installed and warns me if so resp. emerges normally otherwise. If I install |
11 |
> package XYZ some time later portage must of course detect this and say "you |
12 |
> have package ABC installed, which makes problem with the package you wan't to |
13 |
> install now, what do you want to do?". |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Is this an insane idea? It would make portage even better if it could resolve |
16 |
> situations/environments/configurations where emerging/unmerging something will |
17 |
> cause problems. |
18 |
You forgot the inverse of it, you've merge the package that's loosely |
19 |
masked as you're proposing, portage now has to tell block you from |
20 |
merging XYZ (due to the package breaking xyz). |
21 |
|
22 |
Offhand... I'm not much for this. The scenarios where it occurs, and |
23 |
a package *could* released are a bit rare imo; basically, gain vs |
24 |
cost. |
25 |
|
26 |
> PS: The second question I want to ask: Why are some packages so long marked ~ |
27 |
> unstable when their upstream is stable. Is there a policy how long to mark new |
28 |
> ebuilds or something like that? |
29 |
Upstream stability does not match actual stability; we stable |
30 |
dependant on our experiences, bugs, and user feedback with a |
31 |
particular version. |
32 |
|
33 |
~harring |