[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Problems with the new no downgrades
Vlastimil Babka kirjoitti: *portage-2.1.5_rc1 (04 Apr 2008) 04 Apr 2008; Zac Medico [EMAIL PROTECTED] +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 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +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
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] +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
