FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-23-2012, 06:37 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:22:37 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:23:13 +0200
> Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:06:38 +0100
> > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:09:03 +0200
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > That's just it, though -- this no longer holds. -r300 is now
> > > > > being used for something that is exactly the same version as
> > > > > -r200.
> > > >
> > > > Did you look at SONAME?
> > >
> > > Look at SONAME before deciding what package to install? Kindly
> > > explain how that works.
> >
> > I'm just saying that these are two different versions of the
> > package. If you want GTK+3, you take the newer one. If you want
> > GTK+2 compat, you take the older slot. What's wrong with that?
>
> The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
> version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version than
> 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness happens
> allows manglers to know that things that are usually true about the
> relationship between slots and versions no longer hold, and that in
> these specific cases it should consider slots to be heavily
> independent.

It *is* a 'better' version, much like gtk+-3.* is 'better' than
gtk+-2.*.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 06-23-2012, 06:37 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness
> > happens allows manglers to know that things that are usually true
> > about the relationship between slots and versions no longer hold,
> > and that in these specific cases it should consider slots to be
> > heavily independent.
>
> You already have this info, it's called a "slot dependency".

It's not a property of individual packages that happen to depend upon
the problematic package. The property holds or not for a package
regardless of whether anything depends upon it.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:14 PM
Alex Alexander
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:35:47 +0300
> Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > The package mangler does not know that 1.1-r300 is not a "better"
>> > version than 1.1-r200, or that 1.2-r200 is not a "better" version
>> > than 1.1-r300. Indicating packages where this kind of strangeness
>> > happens allows manglers to know that things that are usually true
>> > about the relationship between slots and versions no longer hold,
>> > and that in these specific cases it should consider slots to be
>> > heavily independent.
>>
>> You already have this info, it's called a "slot dependency".
>
> It's not a property of individual packages that happen to depend upon
> the problematic package. The property holds or not for a package
> regardless of whether anything depends upon it.

They are part of the deal.

If your package has reverse deps, you don't want to update it before
figuring out it's reverse dependencies anyway, you never know what
slot/version restrictions you're going to get.

If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
slot defined in the world file.

--
Alex
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:16 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
> slot defined in the world file.

That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs a
way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new slots
when not explicitly required is undesirable.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:27 PM
Alex Alexander
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
<ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the most
>> recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user has the
>> slot defined in the world file.
>
> That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs a
> way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new slots
> when not explicitly required is undesirable.

Or the PM can notify the user that a new slot has come up and instruct
them to specify their desired slot in their world file.

--
Alex
 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:29 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:27:03 +0300
Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
> <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:14:32 +0300
> > Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >> If it is a package without reverse dependencies, updating to the
> >> most recent slot and/or version should be expected unless the user
> >> has the slot defined in the world file.
> >
> > That's the part that no longer holds. The package mangler now needs
> > a way of knowing that for a certain few packages, bringing in new
> > slots when not explicitly required is undesirable.
>
> Or the PM can notify the user that a new slot has come up and instruct
> them to specify their desired slot in their world file.

But why? The package mangler could automatically do the right thing,
without requiring help from a user who probably doesn't know about all
of this, if only the small number of packages that did funky things
with revisions and slots said so.

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-23-2012, 08:36 PM
Marien Zwart
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>
> > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> dependency
> > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
>
> No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive
> consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour,
> except
> in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where
> people are doing weird things with versions and slots.

It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages
where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like) are
slotted. The first example that comes to mind here is gtk+: if all
packages a user has installed that depend on gtk+ explicitly depend on
slot 2 (which is probably uncommon now but reasonable back when gtk 3
was introduced), and they do not have gtk+ in their world file (which is
reasonable), do your users really expect the package manager to install
gtk 3? If your package manager has a feature similar to emerge
--depclean, shouldn't this then suggest immediately removing it again,
as nothing depends on it?

I would argue that library versions that can be installed side-by-side,
like gtk+ 2 and 3, "fit the traditional way of how slots worked". But I
think automatically pulling in the latest and greatest version of such a
library only makes sense if code written against the old library stands
a chance of making use of the new library. It might make sense to add a
way to inform your package manager if pulling in new slots by default is
useful, but I would prefer to give this a more obvious name than
"funky-slots", and to come up with a better approach for deciding
whether or not the property should be set than "is SLOTS being used for
something "clever" or not". I would also suggest that the default should
be to *not* pull in new slots by default, but perhaps some review of how
slotting is most commonly used would help decide on that.

--
Marien Zwart
 
Old 06-23-2012, 08:37 PM
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > dependency
> > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
> >
> > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive
> > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour,
> > except
> > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where
> > people are doing weird things with versions and slots.
>
> It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for packages
> where all dependencies (including any in the world set or the like)
> are slotted.

Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).

--
Ciaran McCreesh
 
Old 06-23-2012, 10:50 PM
Gilles Dartiguelongue
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

Le samedi 23 juin 2012 18:30 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh a crit :
>
> It treats -r300 as being newer than -r200, and so will treat "the gtk3
> version" or "the jruby version" as being newer versions of "the gtk2
> version" or "the ruby 1.8 version", just as it tries to bring in a
> newer GCC and so on.

I'm stopping my reading of this thread a minute to answer here.

This is actually true when you think of it, gtk3 bindings are newer than
gtk2.
--
Gilles Dartiguelongue <eva@gentoo.org>
Gentoo
 
Old 06-24-2012, 08:19 AM
Michał Górny
 
Default RFC: PROPERTIES=funky-slots

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:37:11 +0100
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:36:14 +0200
> Marien Zwart <marienz@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On za, 2012-06-23 at 17:08 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > Is it that Paludis installs a newer SLOT even if a reverse
> > > dependency
> > > > explicitly requests another SLOT? Sounds like a bug to me.
> > >
> > > No, it's that if a user requests a "complete" resolution, Paludis
> > > installs the newest version of things that it can. Extensive
> > > consultation with users has shown that this is a good behaviour,
> > > except
> > > in the small number of situations that have recently arisen where
> > > people are doing weird things with versions and slots.
> >
> > It surprises me that this behavior is normally desirable for
> > packages where all dependencies (including any in the world set or
> > the like) are slotted.
>
> Think || ( a:3 a:2 ).

So now that you've stated the problem, maybe it's a good time to find
a proper solution for it.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:00 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org