Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Problems with the new "no downgrades"

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> *portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)
>
>   04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
>   2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
>   since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
>   as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
>   else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
>   unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.
>
> Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about packages
> masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this also to
> keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?
>
> For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
> with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
> released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. So
> I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially if
> something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use slotmove
> because changing slot in java package means also changing where it's
> installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, downgrade won't
> happen. I think it's not good.
>
> VB

Some others were complaining about this in #gentoo-dev and now what
I want to do is revert the behavior so that it's more like it used
to be. The "masked by corruption" case from bug 197810 is special
(the installed package is not actually masked) and it will be
handled without changing the behavior in other cases.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkf7mzMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaM9MwCglI1FIn/DfixjFsiz8uy97XsM
LJ8AoJmgn4YZbt4vcdQ51G/PkUdDHM7u
=CbCl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list