| 1 |
On Wednesday, February 05, 2014 19:11:12 Sebastian Luther wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 05.02.2014 09:03, schrieb Mike Frysinger: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday, February 01, 2014 20:38:05 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar |
| 4 |
> > Arahesis wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > this i'm not so sure about. when you have a local overlay, portage |
| 7 |
> > complains when there are no masters which means most people have |
| 8 |
> > just blindly added "masters = gentoo". but if they have packages |
| 9 |
> > in there using the old name (on purpose), then updates will |
| 10 |
> > constantly tromp on that. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The old behavior was to always apply the updates from ::gentoo as long |
| 13 |
> as the repo didn't have its own updates. This means it doesn't matter |
| 14 |
> if the repo sets the "masters = gentoo" as long as it doesn't contain |
| 15 |
> updates. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
ok, i thought it always ignored the gentoo updates dir |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > at least, there should be one of: - one-time automatic migration of |
| 20 |
> > existing layout.conf files where we set "updates-master =" for |
| 21 |
> > them. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> How do you know if it's the user's repo or a layman repo, where |
| 24 |
> layout.conf is manged by other people? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
you ask layman. this isn't difficult. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> > - a warning phase where we complain if the field isn't set, and we |
| 29 |
> > default to current behavior. once some time has elapsed, we stop |
| 30 |
> > warning and we change the default. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Be sure to only hit users which are really affected by the change |
| 33 |
> (i.e. repos with existing updates and master repos which contain |
| 34 |
> updates, which affect packages in the repo). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
doing it based on the current set of affected packages doens't make sense then |
| 37 |
the set of possible updates is constantly changing |
| 38 |
-mike |
Archives