-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 01/07/14 07:57 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > perl-core/Switch is now stabilized on "amd64 ppc x86", so this > should be fixed. > >> On 30/06/14 04:46 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: >>> [snip!] * As Fabian pointed out, perl-core/Switch-2.160.0 >>> should still go stable. Fine with me (but I can't read your >>> minds about future stabilizations, and the virtual only had >>> ~arch reverse deps). >> >> There shouldn't be any need to read minds, here -- if the >> previous stable perl had this capability, then the new stable >> perl should too (whether that be via internal or external module >> package). If it doesn't, then the upgraded-new-stable-perl isn't >> a valid replacement for the stable version it previously >> replaced. Remember that there could be who knows what scripts on >> end-user systems that need this functionality, and if it's >> suddenly not available because the only thing that provides it is >> ~arch, then they are not left in a happy state.. > > I'm not fully buying this argument, since it would prevent us ever > stabilizing a package where an upstream feature is removed. >
But it's not removed -- it's just packaged separately, if one takes the entirety of dev-lang/perl + perl-core/* as meaning "perl". If the feature was indeed just plain gone and there wasn't a module providing that functionality, then of course stabilization shouldn't be held up waiting for someone to write or package it, but if it -has- been written and packaged already, I personally think it makes sense that it be added to the stabilization list without the need for a bunch of people specifically requesting it. (i realize based on what is stated below, that it wasn't stabilized for any other perl release after 5.12 and i would guess that is likely why it wasn't considered for stabilization for 5.16 along with the rest of the packages in https://458122.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=339264 ) > (Switch was first released with perl v5.7.3 and removed from > v5.13.1. So there should have been lots of time to update > dependency declarations or pull in the external package if needed > for non-portage scripts.) Perhaps if it makes sense to do so, the virtual/perl-*'s should be adjusted so that they ewarn on pkg_postinst when the older perl version is no longer being installed, to let them know they should update their @world?? I expect this could be a templatized message, even... For this particular case, having the per-core package mentioned in the p.mask helps a lot. >> It would be nice if something like a pkgmove be done on the >> virtual, though, upon its elimintation; anyone that installed the >> virtual to obtain perl Switch shouldn't have to unmerge and >> specifically emerge perl-core/Switch. I'm not sure if pkgmove >> itself supports this, though.. > > I dont think this is what pkgmove does (this would move the "no > installed files" vdb entry of the virtual to the perl-core name... > we would need a functionality that only touches the world file > alone...) > Probably we would want it to do more than just change @world, for instance the in-vdb dependency list for all other installed packages that contain the virtual should be changed to perl-core/Switch. But yes I agree 'pkgmove' as it stands would probably make a mess of things. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlOzBBIACgkQ2ugaI38ACPCSMgEAvA3CDQ514onG5JpeVn4kukXe m/1QS6fy9HC70LWXEFUA/2tLYz+Ljz9RonsPnrK7U+mgOiRI4icbt4d58rjLZOsP =TecJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
