On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:34 +0800 Patrick Lauer <patr...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > > > Creating a new SLOT is the most sane thing going forward; but, as > > the default (:*) depends on any SLOT, this needs a half thousand > > commits to fix up reverse dependencies. Thus, instead a new package > > is made. [1] > > Pff. Lazy. Yes, but who is lazy here? The person that wants to commit the dependency or the people whom depend on the implicit :* behavior? Or someone else? > > When our defaults force us down such path, that can't be good and it > > affects the quality of our Portage tree; so, this makes me wonder, > > can we change the default from :* to :0? What do you think? > > That just shifts the breakage to other people, who then have to do > more work. Doing a smaller bit of useful work to spare out tons of useless work. As part of a new EAPI it doesn't break. Why do you think so? Why would this yields more work? The dependencies need to be checked anyway as port of version bumps; so, better do them right at once. > > If we agree we do this; in order to change :* to :0, we need to > > change the PMS to cover this change and implement it in the package > > managers. > > > > Before we do that, we need to evaluate how practical this is to > > apply. While we are trying to fix the default behavior, what would > > changing the default from :* to :0 break? > > > > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that > > have no SLOT="0" ebuild present would need us to manually specify a > > specific SLOT; given that this is a not so common situation, the > > amount of commits needed here is low. > > And now you make updating a lot more fun, because slotted packages > need to be explicitly changed if there's a new slot happening. Just > to hide your own laziness. As per my first question of this reply, whose laziness do you mean? > > Another thing that comes to mind is that we need to check what to do > > with packages were the highest available version does not belong to > > SLOT="0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT="0" will not cause > > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look > > closer into how we can alleviate this result. > > Yup, bad idea. As part of a new EAPI the above is no longer necessary as the change isn't done in place; furthermore, even if we don't do it as part of a new EAPI repoman can cover this with a QA warning. > 500 commits vs. making things more complicated for everyone ... srsly? Why do you think this idea makes things more complicated for everyone? -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
