[gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Geert Bevin]

Hello all,

I've committed a masked portage 1.8.8-r1. Since I've changed a few
internal features it would be nice if some people tested it and bashed
it to death before I unmask it :-)

Thanks for the help !

Here is the relevant excerpt from the changelog :
*portage 1.8.8-r1 (1 Feb 2002)

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> portage.py, ebuild.sh :
  added support for a pkg_setup() function which is executed before 
  anything else and can be typically used for package configuration 
  actions or required system checks

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> portage.py :
  implemented the noauto MAINTAINER flags for all relevant ebuild 
  commands

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> portage.py :
  make env-update disregard backup files
  
  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
  added --pretend support instead of interactively asking to proceed,
  also added a delay before unmerging though to be sure

*portage 1.8.8 (1 Feb 2002)

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
  added --safe switch to complement the --unmerge option

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> portage.py :
  rewrote the packagename without category support to also graceously 
  handle deps specifiers at the beginning, this shouldn't be used in the
  ebuilds, but are very handy when using emerge --unmerge

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
  added emerge --unmerge support

  1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> portage.py :
  added packagename without category support in the dep_match function

*portage 1.8.7 (30 Jan 2002)

-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Vitaly Kushneriuk]

> *portage 1.8.8 (1 Feb 2002)
> 
>   1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
>   added --safe switch to complement the --unmerge option
IMO --safe should be default, with --force to override it.
Just my 0.02$ ;)
	/Vitaly

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Geert Bevin]

I thought about this, but didn't implement it that way since portage
seems to be 'greedy' by default. With that I mean that '--pretend' also
has to be explicitly specified to prevent actions from happening.
Therefor I think it's more logical to have to specify '--safe'
explicitly too.

On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 06:29, Vitaly Kushneriuk wrote:
> > *portage 1.8.8 (1 Feb 2002)
> > 
> >   1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
> >   added --safe switch to complement the --unmerge option
> IMO --safe should be default, with --force to override it.
> Just my 0.02$ ;)
> 	/Vitaly
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> 
-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Dan Armak]

On Sunday 03 February 2002 19:05, you wrote:
> I thought about this, but didn't implement it that way since portage
> seems to be 'greedy' by default. With that I mean that '--pretend' also
> has to be explicitly specified to prevent actions from happening.
> Therefor I think it's more logical to have to specify '--safe'
> explicitly too.
While unmerge functionality is still in testing, I propose that we rename 
--safe to --old or similar. IMO it' makes a lot more sense, since unmerging 
without --safe isn't unsafe, it's just different.

We might also (eventually) make a stub or symlink unmerge -> emerge --unmerge.

These are small things which might seem unimportant, but I think they help 
create a more unified and intuitive interface to portage.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team (KDE)
Matan, Israel

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1203 bytes --]

On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 23:28, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Sunday 03 February 2002 19:05, you wrote:
> > I thought about this, but didn't implement it that way since portage
> > seems to be 'greedy' by default. With that I mean that '--pretend' also
> > has to be explicitly specified to prevent actions from happening.
> > Therefor I think it's more logical to have to specify '--safe'
> > explicitly too.
> While unmerge functionality is still in testing, I propose that we rename 
> --safe to --old or similar. IMO it' makes a lot more sense, since unmerging 
> without --safe isn't unsafe, it's just different.
> 
> We might also (eventually) make a stub or symlink unmerge -> emerge --unmerge.
> 
> These are small things which might seem unimportant, but I think they help 
> create a more unified and intuitive interface to portage.
> 

ditto

> -- 
> Dan Armak
> Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team (KDE)
> Matan, Israel
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Geert Bevin]

> While unmerge functionality is still in testing, I propose that we rename 
> --safe to --old or similar. IMO it' makes a lot more sense, since unmerging 
> without --safe isn't unsafe, it's just different.

Well both make sense to me since --safe ensures that the system
continues to work as it did before the unmerge by not removing any
functionalities. With -old you have the possible misunderstanding about
what old mean. Is it the package revision number or related to the last
installed package. With unmerge, the latter applies. Of course if most
devs vote for --old we'll change ;-)

-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1455 bytes --]

On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 23:58, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > While unmerge functionality is still in testing, I propose that we rename 
> > --safe to --old or similar. IMO it' makes a lot more sense, since unmerging 
> > without --safe isn't unsafe, it's just different.
> 
> Well both make sense to me since --safe ensures that the system
> continues to work as it did before the unmerge by not removing any
> functionalities. With -old you have the possible misunderstanding about
> what old mean. Is it the package revision number or related to the last
> installed package. With unmerge, the latter applies. Of course if most
> devs vote for --old we'll change ;-)
> 

Im more just for the more lazy 'unmerge' option.

In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
support ... ;)

> -- 
> Geert Bevin
> the Leaf sprl/bvba
> "Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
> http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
> gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Geert Bevin]

> In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
> it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
> blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
> unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
> support ... ;)

Personally I prefer it too.
Ok, I propose to make the --safe flag the default action as requested
and to add a new flag to make unmerge remove everything. Is --force a
good name, or is --all better, or even nice ideas, anyone?

-- 
Geert Bevin
the Leaf sprl/bvba
"Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Martin Schlemmer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 00:33, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
> > it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
> > blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
> > unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
> > support ... ;)
> 
> Personally I prefer it too.
> Ok, I propose to make the --safe flag the default action as requested
> and to add a new flag to make unmerge remove everything. Is --force a
> good name, or is --all better, or even nice ideas, anyone?
> 

--all is probebly the more clear one.  Anyone else ?

> -- 
> Geert Bevin
> the Leaf sprl/bvba
> "Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
> http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
> gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

RE: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Chris Taylor]

First of all, I'm really not doing much development, but here's my .02
anyways. :-)

I can see it now, a user sees the command "unmerge --all packageName"
and asks, "Will this unmerge ALL my packages?  That's would be bad,
right?"  Maybe instead of --all or even --force, how about --plusdeps to
unmerge the package and all its dependencies?  I'm in agreement that
--force isn't a good choice.  --force to me should be a flag to set if
another package has a dependency on the package that is being unmerged.
By default, it wouldn't unmerge a package that is a dependency of
another and the --force flag would "force" unmerge to go ahead and
ignore that dependency.

Again, this is just my .02 - I hope you all find it worth the time it
has taken to read it.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org [mailto:gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org]
On
> Behalf Of Martin Schlemmer
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:40 PM
> To: Gentoo-Dev
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1
> 
> On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 00:33, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > > In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
> > > it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
> > > blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
> > > unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
> > > support ... ;)
> >
> > Personally I prefer it too.
> > Ok, I propose to make the --safe flag the default action as
requested
> > and to add a new flag to make unmerge remove everything. Is --force
a
> > good name, or is --all better, or even nice ideas, anyone?
> >
> 
> --all is probebly the more clear one.  Anyone else ?
> 
> > --
> > Geert Bevin
> > the Leaf sprl/bvba
> > "Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
> > http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
> > gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> --
> 
> Martin Schlemmer
> Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
> Cape Town, South Africa

RE: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Chris Taylor]

I was also thinking that "--force" could be applied to the dependent
packages also (same flag???).  For example, if package A had a
dependency on package B, but package C also had a dependency on package
B, the default behavior of the "--plusdeps" flag would not unmerge it.
However, if both "--plusdeps" AND "--force" were specified, it would
unmerge both packages A and B.

Chris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org [mailto:gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org]
On
> Behalf Of Chris Taylor
> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 8:26 PM
> To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1
> 
> First of all, I'm really not doing much development, but here's my .02
> anyways. :-)
> 
> I can see it now, a user sees the command "unmerge --all packageName"
> and asks, "Will this unmerge ALL my packages?  That's would be bad,
> right?"  Maybe instead of --all or even --force, how about --plusdeps
to
> unmerge the package and all its dependencies?  I'm in agreement that
> --force isn't a good choice.  --force to me should be a flag to set if
> another package has a dependency on the package that is being
unmerged.
> By default, it wouldn't unmerge a package that is a dependency of
> another and the --force flag would "force" unmerge to go ahead and
> ignore that dependency.
> 
> Again, this is just my .02 - I hope you all find it worth the time it
> has taken to read it.
> 
> Chris
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org
[mailto:gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org]
> On
> > Behalf Of Martin Schlemmer
> > Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 5:40 PM
> > To: Gentoo-Dev
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1
> >
> > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 00:33, Geert Bevin wrote:
> > > > In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
> > > > it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
> > > > blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
> > > > unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
> > > > support ... ;)
> > >
> > > Personally I prefer it too.
> > > Ok, I propose to make the --safe flag the default action as
> requested
> > > and to add a new flag to make unmerge remove everything. Is
--force
> a
> > > good name, or is --all better, or even nice ideas, anyone?
> > >
> >
> > --all is probebly the more clear one.  Anyone else ?
> >
> > > --
> > > Geert Bevin
> > > the Leaf sprl/bvba
> > > "Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
> > > http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
> > > gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> > --
> >
> > Martin Schlemmer
> > Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team Developer
> > Cape Town, South Africa
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Vitaly Kushneriuk]

Yes, but emerge is not as dangerous as unmerge.

On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 19:05, Geert Bevin wrote:
> I thought about this, but didn't implement it that way since portage
> seems to be 'greedy' by default. With that I mean that '--pretend' also
> has to be explicitly specified to prevent actions from happening.
> Therefor I think it's more logical to have to specify '--safe'
> explicitly too.
> 
> On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 06:29, Vitaly Kushneriuk wrote:
> > > *portage 1.8.8 (1 Feb 2002)
> > > 
> > >   1 Feb 2002; G.Bevin <gbevin@gentoo.org> emerge :
> > >   added --safe switch to complement the --unmerge option
> > IMO --safe should be default, with --force to override it.
> > Just my 0.02$ ;)
> > 	/Vitaly
> > _______________________________________________
> > gentoo-dev mailing list
> > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
> > 
> -- 
> Geert Bevin
> the Leaf sprl/bvba
> "Use what you need"           Pierre Theunisstraat 1/47
> http://www.theleaf.be         1030 Brussels
> gbevin@theleaf.be             Tel & Fax +32 2 241 19 98
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

Re: [gentoo-dev] masked portage 1.8.8-r1

[Dan Armak]

On Monday 04 February 2002 00:33, you wrote:
> > In the --safe/--old issue .. i tend to agree with Vitaly that
> > it should rather be --force to force a unmerge of all.  Just
> > blindly merging stuff usually do not break things ....
> > unmerging do though, and if you have the time for user
> > support ... ;)
>
> Personally I prefer it too.
> Ok, I propose to make the --safe flag the default action as requested
> and to add a new flag to make unmerge remove everything. Is --force a
> good name, or is --all better, or even nice ideas, anyone?
I vote for --all, "forcing" brings the wrong connotations to mind (for me at 
least). 

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop Team (KDE)
Matan, Israel