Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:00:09
Message-Id: pan$1b90f$262bb192$1fe29a52$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes by Alexander Berntsen
1 Alexander Berntsen posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:56:28 +0200 as excerpted:
3 > One thing that needs discussion is what to do with the current behaviour
4 > of --autounmask, i.e. printing the suggestions. One thing that was
5 > really weird in my original patches (the ones in this thread)
6 > is this:
7 >
8 > emerge foo # this will do what --autounmask does today
9 > emerge foo --autounmask # this will do what --autounmask-write does
10 > emerge foo -a # this will do what --ask --autounmask-write does
11 > emerge foo --autounmask=n # this will do what --autounmask=n does
12 >
13 > The problem here is that there is no way to do e.g. emerge foo --ask,
14 > and get suggestions any longer. You can either have it prompt to write
15 > stuff, or you can have it not do anything -- but you can't explicitly
16 > have it suggest stuff without prompting to write. This is bad design.
17 >
18 > So either I need to implement tri-state (--autounmask can be yes, no,
19 > suggest), or I need to do something more drastic.
21 This remains my problem with the patches as they are now.
23 * I don't want portage writing mask/use changes on its own under any
24 circumstances, as I use directories and have my own idea of what files I
25 want stuff in.
27 * Never-the-less, I find the suggestions very helpful and indeed, often
28 the easiest way to find out what I need to do.
30 * I routinely use --ask.
32 Currently, --ask assumes "yes" very easily, simply hit return, and I like
33 that behavior for simple merges as it's convenient and easily enough
34 undone. (With --oneshot by default as well, an errant enter is undone
35 easily enough with a --depclean.)
37 The patches as they are now would change that, giving me no way to still
38 get the suggestions with --ask, without chancing the actual write of
39 those changes. That's particularly bad as the currently convenient
40 behavior of letting a simple enter indicate yes makes it all too easy to
41 actually do those writes I don't want done under any circumstances.
43 While I'm fine with --ask defaulting to (the current) --autounmask-write
44 behavior by default, I need a way to get the current --ask --autounmask
45 (without write) behavior too, even if I need to add --autounmask=suggest
46 or some such to DEFAULTOPTS, because that's /my/ configuration's default
47 behavior, and I want it to stay that way. =:^)
49 So please do implement that tri-state --autounmask=suggest behavior. =:^)
52 The only other /possible/ objection I see is the potential version-
53 dependent confusion over --autounmask behavior. An argument could be
54 made that it might be better to simply kill the --autounmask switch, hard-
55 wiring that behavior, and keep the current --autounmask-write name,
56 simply making it the default while still allowing people to explicitly set
57 --autounmask-write=n.
59 That way, while the remaining --autounmask-write parameter would arguably
60 unnecessarily keep it's longer name, there could be no confusion over the
61 changing --autounmask behavior, since that parameter would simply cease
62 to exist.
64 But I don't feel strongly about that. If people think the confusion over
65 --autounmask changing meaning isn't as big a deal as saving those few
66 extra characters necessary for the longer -write variant, fine with me.
68 --
69 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
70 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
71 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes Alexander Berntsen <bernalex@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes Wyatt Epp <wyatt.epp@×××××.com>