On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:01:52 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 06/30/2012 12:42 PM, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > That might be neat, but it would already help if you had to add > > --allow-downgrades or similar to emerge in case Portage wants to > > downgrade one or more packages. > > Besides preventing an accidental downgrade it would raise the > > awareness of the problem. > > I think people would just put it in EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS and forget > about it, since downgrades are a fairly common occurrence, due to > changes in version numbering schemes or buggy versions being dropped > from the tree. Maybe a RESTRICT="downgrade" metadata setting would > help to reduce the noise so that people would be less likely to > enable --allow-downgrades by default. Nothing wrong with people putting --allow-downgrades into EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS if they choose to do so. At least people who'd like this protection could make use of it. Usually both upstream and maintainer put quite a bit of thought into an upgrade path but hardly the other way around. On a system with mixed keywords it's far more common to see downgrades because the unmasked version was removed before stable did catch up than pseudo downgrades because we have no epochs or alike.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
