From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6677 invoked by uid 1002); 26 Jul 2003 05:39:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 32270 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2003 05:39:35 -0000 From: Dave Nellans Reply-To: dnellans@cs.utah.edu To: Georgi Georgiev Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030726043448.GA1910%chutz@gg3.net> References: <20030724164320.516c13e8.florian.huber@mnet-online.de> <20030724171546.7b5d2541.florian.huber@mnet-online.de> <20030724153747.GC31140%chutz@gg3.net> <200307252201.27180.vapier@gentoo.org> <3F21E5E7.9070604@gentoo.org> <1059189990.32663.11.camel@malfus> <20030726043448.GA1910%chutz@gg3.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kH4dxbTH03dTkjxhRoaB" Organization: U of Utah Message-Id: <1059197965.32662.29.camel@malfus> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 25 Jul 2003 23:39:26 -0600 Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] dummy-sources X-Archives-Salt: 3d9078c0-d6fb-409b-9972-439da3c71b09 X-Archives-Hash: d3e1c3aad358ef54754839ff3b6cc262 --=-kH4dxbTH03dTkjxhRoaB Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ok, that makes more sense now. what happened to the suggested solution a few emails ago that in this case the user should just create their own dummy-sources ebuild of sufficiently high version and keep it in their local overlay tree? =20 while this is a legitimate grip of the portage system because it is not convienent to do this, portage "does" have what i see as a solution, its just not as convenient as one might want it. so the question is should portage change to make this easier as per suggested below. i vote no because if we make a "dummy-XXX" then one could argue that every package should have a dummy-* build for it. in the long run i'm sure some user will write the dummy-* build for most packagse in portage and that would significantly grow (everyone agree?) the size of the tree as a solution that is for convenience. dave On Fri, 2003-07-25 at 22:34, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > On 25/07/2003 at 21:26:31(-0600), Dave Nellans used 1.4K just to say: > > I agree with brad, I proposed the emerge inject solution was how this > > problem was intended to be dealt with but couldn't quite make sense of > > the reason this didn't work from the thread. > >=20 > > could someone possibly clearly give the arguement against injecting > > again for us slow people? >=20 > The problems as I get them, are: >=20 > - Injecting the sources, would work, but it would require reinjecting eve= ry > newer version, or else an "emerge -u" would upgrade the version for us,= when > for example upgrading a package that depends on the sources. >=20 > - Injecting a sufficiently big, non-existing version would not work, beca= use an > emerge -u (even -U) would downgrade the version to the highest availabl= e, > i.e. it would install a version. > =20 > It seems that having a dummy-sources whose version does not change would = solve > this problem. --=20 Dave Nellans http://lucy.wox.org/~dnellans/ dnellans@cs.utah.edu --=-kH4dxbTH03dTkjxhRoaB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/IhQNdtkLPRim+bkRAkmEAJ4z9wMd/U++pNs6tU3ITD6HYfcRKACff1tz yRLDxPhcyX5D7xb1VvAtym4= =M2cl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kH4dxbTH03dTkjxhRoaB--