Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask

[Alexander Berntsen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote:
> I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change
> as you're proposing.  Current autounmask is **NOT** useless.
How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].

> FWIW, I have a very specific portage layout and there's no way
> "dumb automation" could put what I'd consider the appropriate write
> in what I'd consider the appropriate file, nor do I want it to try!
> (And even if it could do it perfectly, I want to /know/ what my
> config is, and the best way for me to /know/ my config is if the
> only way it changes is if I change it myself!)
Irrelevant.

> OTOH, current default autounmask (without write) behavior, having
> portage tell me what (it thinks) I need to unmask and/or what
> package.use flags it thinks I need is fine, and often quite helpful
>  indeed, as long as it's not actually trying to actually WRITE it
> anywhere!
Irrelevant.

> If I read the above correctly, what you're proposing would kill
> that behavior entirely if --ask is used, defaulting to writing
> (fine if it can be turned off), with no way (at least no way with
> --ask instead of --pretend) to tell portage to make the suggestion
> it with --autounmask (which is the default now), with absolutely no
> chance it's going to attempt to actually rewrite my config on its
> own, period.
I don't understand this sentence, but I think you *don't* understand
what I am saying. Please read comment 10[1], in which I present examples.

> OTOH, Zac's suggestion, to simply enable autounmask-write by
> default but allow the user to set --autounmask-write=n if they
> want, would be just fine, since I could put that in default options
> and be done with it.
Enabling --autounmask-write by default is a terrible idea. It will
result in a lot of spam. Furthermore, consider comment 13[2].

> Tho even that's a sufficiently drastic change from current behavior
>  that I'd expect a good changelog entry mentioning it, and
> preferably a news item, as it has the potential to screw up
> people's configs if they aren't paying attention when the default
> changes.
I agree that a news item could be useful.

[0]  <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c6>
[1]  <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c10>
[2]  <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c13>
- -- 
Alexander
alexander@××××××.net
http://plaimi.net/~alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iF4EAREIAAYFAlKN9pgACgkQRtClrXBQc7UvcgD/XRz/iHDsnFa+qt8Q8ms+K//D
wD/DIAWlKPStlEKW8noA/0b3aj5+jRGmebq1q4lnkp5PaweShxzvyphP2ZeRe5up
=btNb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----