Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:01
Message-Id: pan$b8df1$65c2f13b$eda1a7d5$7486e042@cox.net
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask by Alexander Berntsen
1 Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:03:36 +0100 as excerpted:
2
3 > On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote:
4 >> I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change as
5 >> you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless.
6 > How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].
7
8 I read comment 10, and am objecting based on it, because there'd be no
9 way to do what I'm doing currently and which my workflow depends on,
10 which you call irrelevant (below).
11
12 >> FWIW, I have a very specific portage layout and there's no way "dumb
13 >> automation" could put what I'd consider the appropriate write in what
14 >> I'd consider the appropriate file, nor do I want it to try!
15 >> (And even if it could do it perfectly, I want to /know/ what my config
16 >> is, and the best way for me to /know/ my config is if the only way it
17 >> changes is if I change it myself!)
18 > Irrelevant.
19 >
20 >> OTOH, current default autounmask (without write) behavior, having
21 >> portage tell me what (it thinks) I need to unmask and/or what
22 >> package.use flags it thinks I need is fine, and often quite helpful
23 >> indeed, as long as it's not actually trying to actually WRITE it
24 >> anywhere!
25 > Irrelevant.
26 >
27 >> If I read the above correctly, what you're proposing would kill that
28 >> behavior entirely if --ask is used, defaulting to writing (fine if it
29 >> can be turned off), with no way (at least no way with --ask instead of
30 >> --pretend) to tell portage to make the suggestion it with --autounmask
31 >> (which is the default now), with absolutely no chance it's going to
32 >> attempt to actually rewrite my config on its own, period.
33 > I don't understand this sentence, but I think you *don't* understand
34 > what I am saying. Please read comment 10[1], in which I present
35 > examples.
36
37 1) Because the dependency calculations take time, I normally use --ask so
38 I don't have to have portage redo those calculations if I like what its
39 telling me it's going to do.
40
41 2) Under no circumstances do I want portage rewriting masks, etc, on its
42 own, not even with config-protect.
43
44 3) Despite that, I find the suggestions it makes saying what it /thinks/
45 it needs unmasked useful -- I just want to write them to the file I want,
46 with the comment I want (sometimes with a bit different atom, too), which
47 portage wouldn't do.
48
49 4) You're saying emerge --ask foo would write the config, and I don't see
50 any way to turn that off without also turning off portage's suggestion
51 generation as currently controlled by --autounmask (which is on by
52 default), or without switching --ask to --pretend. Your proposal is
53 broken behavior as far as I'm concerned, because I find portage's
54 suggestions (current autounmask) useful, not the entirely useless you
55 seem to think they are without automatically writing them, which I do NOT
56 want portage to do under /any/ circumstances.
57
58 5) There needs to be a way to get portage's current emerge --ask
59 --autounmask foo (without --autounmask-write) behavior, because that's
60 /exactly/ what I use and find most useful. But I don't particularly care
61 what the default is since I can configure it as needed, as long as this
62 current behavior remains possible.
63
64 >> OTOH, Zac's suggestion, to simply enable autounmask-write by default
65 >> but allow the user to set --autounmask-write=n if they want, would be
66 >> just fine, since I could put that in default options and be done with
67 >> it.
68 > Enabling --autounmask-write by default is a terrible idea. It will
69 > result in a lot of spam. Furthermore, consider comment 13[2].
70
71 I'd tend to agree, but in that case, why are you wanting to do away with
72 the ability to have portage spit out its opinion, without having portage
73 actually do the write, while using --ask?
74
75 > [0] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c6>
76 > [1] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c10>
77 > [2] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c13>
78
79 --
80 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
81 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
82 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Replies