-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 07:54:48 +0200 | "Mateusz A. Mierzwin'ski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: |> And I strongly suggest to leave old mechanism of portage, because we |> saw couple times what _GREAT_ automatic makes with distro - eg. |> Mandriva with all creators and cheap installer - couple apps not |> running, low performance. |> |> Don't get me wrong - I also have that problems, and they make me |> nervous, but when I think what could I done by automatic replace |> package or binary then I get to thinking that everything is ok... | | I'm not suggesting automatic anything. Here's what I am suggesting. | | Case A, Current Behaviour: User tries to install superfoo. User has | foobar installed. User is presented with a big red blocking message, | with no explanation. User has to work out that he is expected to | uninstall foobar, then install superfoo (which is a problem if superfoo | fails). | | Case A, Suggested New Behaviour: User is instead presented with | something like this: | | [block] app-misc/foobar is blocking app-misc/superfoo. | Explanation: foobar and superfoo both provide /usr/bin/foo | More information: http://www.gentoo.org/blah/blah.xml | [install] app-misc/superfoo | [uninstall] app-misc/foobar | | Error: the above resolution will uninstall 1 package. To accept | this uninstall, use --permit-uninstalls. | | Case B is similar to Case A in resolution, but it's probably nice to | make the distinction. | | Case C, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade foo. User is presented | with a big red blocking message saying foo blocks libfoo or libfoo | blocks foo, with no explanation (assuming it's not one of the subset of | issues that can be solved automatically). | | Case C, Suggested New Behaviour: The package manager realises that so | long as both foo and libfoo are upgraded during the same session, | there's no real block, and the block is merely a way of getting around | limitations in collision detection. No block is shown to the user. | | Case D, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade coreutils. User gets a | big flashy block error saying coreutils blocks mktemp. User doesn't | realise that the safe upgrade path is to force the package manager to | ignore the block, then manually uninstall mktemp straight afterwards. | User instead uninstalls mktemp, which is a moderately critical binary. | | Case D, Suggested New Behaviour: User is presented with something like | this: | | [block] sys-apps/coreutils is blocking sys-apps/mktemp | Explanation: mktemp is now part of coreutils | More information: http://www.gentoo.org/blah/blah.xml | [upgrade] sys-apps/coreutils | [uninstall] sys-apps/mktemp |
Very good idea. - -- Luis F. Araujo "araujo at gentoo.org" Gentoo Linux -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkgFl1AACgkQBCmRZan6aeg9wwCdE0tOEUtinfV5iUyxqQbuKFG5 O1MAoIgUmY5HTLNMgDAaYtgKvm4Me4ru =T31v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
