Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage?

[Daniel Barkalow]

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:45:00 -0500 (EST), Daniel Barkalow wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it just needs to be more popular, or maybe it needs to
> > understand slots better (in order to be popular). I know that all of
> > the kernels I install tell me that support for devfs was removed long
> > before the oldest kernel available in portage as of when I installed
> > the machine.
>
> File a bug, the ebuild shouldn't be reporting this if it is unnecessary or
> confusing.

I think I'll wait a little while for the new bug tracker, but that's 
something worth reporting, I guess.

> > It also doesn't look like it's something where it would be able to
> > choose to upgrade postfix 2.2.10 to 2.2.10-r1 instead of to 2.3.5
> > because 2.3.5 would require help and 2.2.10-r1 is automatic.
>
> This is Gentoo, you are supposed to make those sort of decisions for
> yourself. Automatic updates go against the "the admin is in control"
> ethos.

Gentoo makes a lot of the particular version decisions based on your 
policy decisions. E.g., it'll currently use 2.2.10 and not either 
2.2.10-r1 or 2.3.5 if you don't have ~x86. It would make sense to have 
>=2.3 masked ("by user-intervention requirement") if you have <2.3
installed, like 2.2.10-r1 is masked "by keyword". Masking >=2.3 by hand 
works, but it would be nice to exactly mask the ebuilds that would call 
die in pkg_setup given your status.

(For that matter, it would be nice to have emerge able to tell you about 
masked versions that you might find interesting; I was interested in mysql 
5 going stable, despite having >=4.1 masked, and didn't find out until a 
while later)

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list