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 Portage Developer

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-08-2008, 11:58 AM
Vlastimil Babka
 
Default Problems with the new "no downgrades"

*portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)

04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.

Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about packages
masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this also to
keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?


For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. So
I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially if
something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use slotmove
because changing slot in java package means also changing where it's
installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, downgrade won't
happen. I think it's not good.


VB
--
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-08-2008, 12:09 PM
Petteri Räty
 
Default Problems with the new "no downgrades"

Vlastimil Babka kirjoitti:

*portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)

04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.

Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about packages
masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this also to
keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?


For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. So
I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially if
something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use slotmove
because changing slot in java package means also changing where it's
installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, downgrade won't
happen. I think it's not good.


VB


You can use atoms like <dev-java/swt-3.4_alpha:3 to force it

Regards,
Petteri
 
Old 04-08-2008, 04:09 PM
Vlastimil Babka
 
Default Problems with the new "no downgrades"

Petteri Räty wrote:

Vlastimil Babka kirjoitti:

*portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)

04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.

Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about
packages masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this
also to keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?


For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild.
So I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially
if something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use
slotmove because changing slot in java package means also changing
where it's installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change,
downgrade won't happen. I think it's not good.


VB


You can use atoms like <dev-java/swt-3.4_alpha:3 to force it


OK that solves my problem, thanks.
But in general case I think it's still wrong. Package is found to be
broken, gets p.masked, but people will keep the masked version and not
downgrade. And because it doesn't even warn about that fact, they won't
even know!


Caster

--
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-08-2008, 04:20 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default Problems with the new "no downgrades"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> *portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008)
>
> 04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> +portage-2.1.5_rc1.ebuild:
> 2.1.5_rc1 release. In the event that a previously installed package has
> since been masked, emerge will no longer perform an automatic downgrade
> as part of a "world" update. You should either unmask such packages or
> else explicitly re-merge them in order to have them dowgraded to an
> unmasked version. Bug #216231 tracks all bugs fixed since 2.1.4.x.
>
> Assuming it's because of bug 197810, but that only talks about packages
> masked by corruption. But is it really so good to apply this also to
> keyword/package.mask or even ebuild being removed?
>
> For example, we had swt-3.3.1.1 in SLOT="3" and released swt-3.4_pre6
> with SLOT="3". Later realized it's not backwards compatible enough and
> released swt-3.4_pre6-r1 in SLOT="3.4" removing the 3.4_pre6 ebuild. So
> I would expect the slot 3 to downgrade back to 3.3.1.1 (especially if
> something pulls slot 3 via slot dep). (Note that we can't use slotmove
> because changing slot in java package means also changing where it's
> installed and expected.) Now thanks to this change, downgrade won't
> happen. I think it's not good.
>
> VB

Some others were complaining about this in #gentoo-dev and now what
I want to do is revert the behavior so that it's more like it used
to be. The "masked by corruption" case from bug 197810 is special
(the installed package is not actually masked) and it will be
handled without changing the behavior in other cases.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkf7mzMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaM9MwCglI1FIn/DfixjFsiz8uy97XsM
LJ8AoJmgn4YZbt4vcdQ51G/PkUdDHM7u
=CbCl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM.

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