[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:43:11 +0200: Maybe the best solution is to drop the non-prefixed versions of 'world' and 'system' completely Now that's an idea. It /would/ avoid the confusion, since the new concept would come with a new name, without the legacy meaning associated with it to confuse people. What I'd really prefer would be a legacy message much like what portage is currently spitting out for the output module (that I see every time I run esearch, or the old earch) if people use world, telling them to use @system and @world instead... for 2.2 at least. Do the same for system but of course @system is a direct parallel there. Then for 2.3 or whatever, remove both world and system legacies and force the @ versions. However, as I believe I said earlier in the thread, I'm quite aware I'm not the one implementing it, so whatever you go with I'll happily use, regardless of whether it's what I would have thought best, or not. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Marius Mauch wrote: Maybe the best solution is to drop the non-prefixed versions of 'world' and 'system' completely Deprecating the old syntax sounds like a sensible action to get people shifted onto the new system. I imagine it would work very similarly to emerge info at the moment? Speaking of which, when will that actually get removed (and does anyone know how long it's been hanging around)? Mike 5:) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkjHo78ACgkQu7rWomwgFXp5aQCdEmxjiguMc1qAszRPKE4dleYo VgoAnRuug4Or0kYPZgA3GylvPClkN5LK =iEfE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Marius Mauch wrote: Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition: - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV. One of the main reasons to implement them as sets was to remove special case code in emerge, so I'm quite opposed to adding new special cases instead. And I'm quite sure that such a separation would cause confusion, and some isues regarding (end-user) documentation. We're talking about one special case in the command-line processing, to support the existing usage that all our users are used to. It adds practically nothing in execution time, simply expanding to @system @world, and means that users who don't want to know about sets, or are not thinking in set terms at the time of using emerge, will get the result they expect. Also it makes it easier for users who don't want @system included in @world, eg for easy use of -e @system followed by -e @world. Though honestly I don't think this issue is as big as some other people make it. People might miss some updates. The same would happen if we remove packages from @system, or people switch profiles (so @system changes). Or you could just do as above and people wouldn't miss any updates, and you'd have less support burden from users who aren't bothered about sets, who can carry on using their systems as they always have.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:43:45 +0100 Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition: - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV. One of the main reasons to implement them as sets was to remove special case code in emerge, so I'm quite opposed to adding new special cases instead. And I'm quite sure that such a separation would cause confusion, and some isues regarding (end-user) documentation. We're talking about one special case in the command-line processing, to support the existing usage that all our users are used to. It adds practically nothing in execution time, simply expanding to @system @world, and means that users who don't want to know about sets, or are not thinking in set terms at the time of using emerge, will get the result they expect. It also means we'd indefinitely have to carry another special case around for legacy reasons (removing it later would be even more painful than doing the switch now). You know, those are the things we want to get rid off, as they really make our life harder in the long run. YOu may consider it trivial in this cse, but these things always look trivial when you're adding them, and you curse about them when you have to modify the code later on. Maybe the best solution is to drop the non-prefixed versions of 'world' and 'system' completely Marius
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Duncan wrote: I believe that's the way it is now, yes. Thus what we're proposing would simply keep the legacy meaning for world (and system) as they are, while @world (and @system) would refer to the specific sets. Now that it has been suggested, I do believe that's the simplest way to handle it, since it would involve no change at all for the existing words. One could avoid the confusion about world != @world completely, if one would simply rename @world into e.g. @worldfile Then one could define without any ambiguity world = @world = @worldfile + @system (and of course, one should then let @system not be a @worldfile candidate, at least by default). I am aware that currently @world is already implemented, but only in testing portage and probably not too many user scripts have been converted to this already (resp. _if_ they have been converted, they have most probably been converted from world to @world @system which would not harm either).
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Duncan wrote: every time I try to emerge -NuD system I think there's a good case for system and world without the set specifier working the way they always have. I for one am very aware if I type in @world (ie not system, useful for -e) vs world. I don't see any benefit to the user in jettisoning the existing metaphor. What do others think?
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Steve Long [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:20:00 +0100: I think there's a good case for system and world without the set specifier working the way they always have. I for one am very aware if I type in @world (ie not system, useful for -e) vs world. I don't see any benefit to the user in jettisoning the existing metaphor. What do others think? That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world (without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease of educating the vast majority of stable users, as the @ is new anyway, so it can have new behaviour without a problem, but having new behaviour for world does present a significant re-education/retraining issue. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Duncan wrote: That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world (without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease of educating the vast majority of stable users, as the @ is new anyway, so it can have new behaviour without a problem, but having new behaviour for world does present a significant re-education/retraining issue. The only drawback I see is that we would then have the following: @system == system ...but... @world != world This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live with and document this quirk. How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies world (with no @ sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is not in world_sets? It would warn that the world set no longer automatically includes system (i.e., @system) and also that it is better, from now on, to explicitly use the @ sign for all sets like world and system (since these two are special cases grandfathered in). -Joe
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Joe Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:45:11 -0600: Ah, OK. I have been considering that world is simply a grandfathered name for @world (and same for system). I.e. that world is also specifying the world set, but that only world and system are allowed to have the @ dropped to avoid breaking things for users. Isn't that the way the code treats it now? I believe that's the way it is now, yes. Thus what we're proposing would simply keep the legacy meaning for world (and system) as they are, while @world (and @system) would refer to the specific sets. Now that it has been suggested, I do believe that's the simplest way to handle it, since it would involve no change at all for the existing words. @system would of course be the same as system, but there'd be a slight difference between world and @world. I think that's still less confusing, however, because people who don't care about the new functionality wouldn't have to worry about it, while for those that do, world could be simply explained as a legacy special-case. Since the only people worried about the difference between world and @world would be by definition the folks learning the new functionality anyway, that single legacy corner-case, once documented, shouldn't be a big deal. People learning @world can be told not to worry about the world case anyway, and just remember that sets always get @, and they're @world view (hehe, punny!) will once again be consistent. But I'm not one of the portage devs implementing it, so I'm not the one making the rules how the implementation should work. Someone (or ones, plural, yes I know someones isn't a valid plural, but anyway) else gets to decide all that. =8^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
William Hubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:46:11 -0500: On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 10:39:41PM +0300, Petteri R??ty wrote: Title: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2 Author: Petteri R??ty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Author: Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2008-XX-XX Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc8 As of Portage 2.2 the world set does not include the system set any more. If you want emerge --update --deep @world to update the system set too, you need to add @system to the new world_sets file in /var/lib/portage/. For more information on world_sets see man portage. This brings up a question. I've a question as well, but a different one. Running portage-2.2_rc8 (the latest as of this morning's update), every time I try to emerge -NuD system, it tries to add @system to /var/lib/ portage/world_sets (saying recording it in world favorites file, but it goes in world_sets not in world), regardless of the fact that I don't WANT system included in world and in spite of all the einfos and posts here and etc to the contrary. I like world NOT including system, but it seems at present, portage is trying to FORCE it to include it anyway, despite the einfo and all the messages I've read here to the contrary. I was /wondering/ why despite all the messages to the contrary, it seemed world still included system. After reading this thread, I took another look at the above fine and decided I must have put it there when I first upgraded, and forgotten about it. So I removed it. Next thing I know, it's back! Then I look and sure enough, portage keeps putting it back every time I remove it! That's not nice! Current workaround: Since I don't have anything else I need to list in world_sets I simply symlinked it to /dev/null, so portage writes @system into /dev/null and system and world continue to be separate as they're supposed to be! Now it can write @system into world_sets all day, and it won't change anything. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:33:10 +: Current workaround: Since I don't have anything else I need to list in world_sets I simply symlinked it to /dev/null, so portage writes @system into /dev/null and system and world continue to be separate as they're supposed to be! Now it can write @system into world_sets all day, and it won't change anything. Harumph! That workaround doesn't seem to work either. I guess I have to resort to putting an emerge previous to portage's emerge in the path, that deletes the file portage keeps putting back, before calling the portage emerge. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:42:19 +: Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:33:10 +: Current workaround: Since I don't have anything else I need to list in world_sets I simply symlinked it to /dev/null, so portage writes @system into /dev/null and system and world continue to be separate as they're supposed to be! Now it can write @system into world_sets all day, and it won't change anything. Harumph! That workaround doesn't seem to work either. I guess I have to resort to putting an emerge previous to portage's emerge in the path, that deletes the file portage keeps putting back, before calling the portage emerge. Duh! Guess I had to ask in ordered to figure it out myself. =:^S Maybe this should be mentioned in the upgrade documentation as it sure confused me. @system isn't part of world, but with the new sets functionality, as of portage-2.2, system is treated as any other set, and /just/ as with any other set, it will be added to world if found on the command line unless --oneshot/-1 is set as well. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
To avoid having @system added to world_sets, you could add [system] world-candidate = false to your /etc/portage/sets.conf
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2
Benedikt Morbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:39:34 +0200: To avoid having @system added to world_sets, you could add [system] world-candidate = false to your /etc/portage/sets.conf Thanks. (FWIW, someone reminded me that this isn't a portage support forum, too. Still, thanks.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
