public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
@ 2003-04-28 20:01 Denys Duchier
  2003-04-29  0:53 ` Daniel Armyr
  2003-04-29  7:06 ` Patrick Kursawe
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Denys Duchier @ 2003-04-28 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

Dear devs,

I asked this question on the gentoo-user list, but did not get any
useful answer.  Can someone on the dev list please has a quick look:

"emerge -U" is not behaving as I would expect.  I discovered this
while trying "emerge -Up world" to see what I needed to update.
Here is what I get:


% emerge -Up tetex
>>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating world dependencies ...done!
[ebuild    UD] app-text/tetex-1.0.7-r12 [2.0-r1]


% ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge -Up tetex
>>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild    U ] app-shells/bash-2.05b-r4 [2.05b-r3]
[ebuild    U ] dev-util/dialog-0.9_beta20030308-r1 [0.9_beta20020814]
[ebuild    U ] app-text/tetex-2.0.2 [2.0-r1]


--upgradeonly (-U) is documented as follows:

    "Updates packages, but excludes updates that would result in a
    lower version of the package being installed. SLOTs are considered
    at a basic level."

I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to mean, but the
first sentence promises exactly what I want: namely to not
downgrade... but that's not what emerge delivers.  Is that an error of
documentation, of implementation, or of interpretation on my part?

Without such an option (with the semantics that I want), it is
extremely inconvenient to upgrade your system, while not downgrading
the select few ~x86 packages that you have emerged.

Any insights?

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Denys Duchier
Équipe Calligramme
LORIA, Nancy, FRANCE

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-04-28 20:01 [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade Denys Duchier
@ 2003-04-29  0:53 ` Daniel Armyr
  2003-04-29  7:06 ` Patrick Kursawe
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Armyr @ 2003-04-29  0:53 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-user; +Cc: gentoo-dev

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In absence of someone who really knows, comments in the source code
imply that the feature you are asking for has not been implemented just
yet. It seems to definately be o the TODO list though.

//Daniel Armyr
PS I am sending this to gentoo-user, since I assume that is where it
belongs. DS

|
| I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to mean, but the
| first sentence promises exactly what I want: namely to not
| downgrade... but that's not what emerge delivers.  Is that an error of
| documentation, of implementation, or of interpretation on my part?
|
| Without such an option (with the semantics that I want), it is
| extremely inconvenient to upgrade your system, while not downgrading
| the select few ~x86 packages that you have emerged.
|
| Any insights?
|
| Cheers,
|

- --
=========================================
daniel.armyr@home.se     f00-dar@f.kth.se

C118 KEVII Hall
1A Kent Ridge Rd S.119224
Singapore                 PGP@pgp.mit.edu
=========================================
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+rc0VhxtTUWLs2lERAhfrAJ4ry6NM1JPf5L5+G4U/pUd7fnUANACaAh+r
GSrtPHH98ujI3n4KIJ6WsC0=
=NCrW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-04-28 20:01 [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade Denys Duchier
  2003-04-29  0:53 ` Daniel Armyr
@ 2003-04-29  7:06 ` Patrick Kursawe
  2003-04-29 15:41   ` [gentoo-dev] " duchier
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Kursawe @ 2003-04-29  7:06 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 732 bytes --]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 10:01:03PM +0200, Denys Duchier wrote:
> "emerge -U" is not behaving as I would expect.  I discovered this
> while trying "emerge -Up world" to see what I needed to update.
> Here is what I get:

> % emerge -Up tetex
> >>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options.
> 
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
> 
> Calculating world dependencies ...done!
> [ebuild    UD] app-text/tetex-1.0.7-r12 [2.0-r1]

Tetex 2.0-r1 has been removed from portage. It looks like emerge
tries to be on the safe side and rather downgrade than keep
a version it does not know about. If you upgrade to tetex-2.0.2,
emerge -U should no longer try to downgrade.

Bye, Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-dev] Re: emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-04-29  7:06 ` Patrick Kursawe
@ 2003-04-29 15:41   ` duchier
  2003-04-30  5:50     ` Patrick Kursawe
  2003-05-01  9:07     ` Nick Jones
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: duchier @ 2003-04-29 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev

Patrick Kursawe <phosphan@gentoo.org> writes:

>> Calculating world dependencies ...done!
>> [ebuild    UD] app-text/tetex-1.0.7-r12 [2.0-r1]
>
> Tetex 2.0-r1 has been removed from portage. It looks like emerge
> tries to be on the safe side and rather downgrade than keep
> a version it does not know about. If you upgrade to tetex-2.0.2,
> emerge -U should no longer try to downgrade.

Thank you very much!  That explains it and your suggestion fixed the
problem.  However, is this really the _right_ behaviour?

    o portage actually knows something about tetex 2.0-r1 since it is
      emerged

    o --upgradeonly promises to not downgrade: regardless of whether
      there is currently an ebuild for the installed version, the
      version is known, and IMHO that fixes the semantics of
      downgrading

    o maybe --pretend could provide an indication that no ebuild for
      the currently installed version can be found

Comments?

-- 
Denys Duchier - Équipe Calligramme - LORIA, Nancy, France


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-04-29 15:41   ` [gentoo-dev] " duchier
@ 2003-04-30  5:50     ` Patrick Kursawe
  2003-05-01  9:07     ` Nick Jones
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Patrick Kursawe @ 2003-04-30  5:50 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: gentoo-dev, carpaski

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1147 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 05:41:39PM +0200, duchier@ps.uni-sb.de wrote:
> Patrick Kursawe <phosphan@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> >> Calculating world dependencies ...done!
> >> [ebuild    UD] app-text/tetex-1.0.7-r12 [2.0-r1]
> >
> > Tetex 2.0-r1 has been removed from portage. It looks like emerge
> > tries to be on the safe side and rather downgrade than keep
> > a version it does not know about. If you upgrade to tetex-2.0.2,
> > emerge -U should no longer try to downgrade.
> 
> Thank you very much!  That explains it and your suggestion fixed the
> problem.  However, is this really the _right_ behaviour?
> 
>     o portage actually knows something about tetex 2.0-r1 since it is
>       emerged
> 
>     o --upgradeonly promises to not downgrade: regardless of whether
>       there is currently an ebuild for the installed version, the
>       version is known, and IMHO that fixes the semantics of
>       downgrading
> 
>     o maybe --pretend could provide an indication that no ebuild for
>       the currently installed version can be found
> 
> Comments?

Nicholas, are you following this thread?

Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-04-29 15:41   ` [gentoo-dev] " duchier
  2003-04-30  5:50     ` Patrick Kursawe
@ 2003-05-01  9:07     ` Nick Jones
  2003-05-01  9:22       ` Denys Duchier
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Nick Jones @ 2003-05-01  9:07 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: duchier; +Cc: gentoo-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

>> Tetex 2.0-r1 has been removed from portage. It looks like emerge
>> tries to be on the safe side and rather downgrade than keep
>> a version it does not know about. If you upgrade to tetex-2.0.2,
>> emerge -U should no longer try to downgrade.

> Thank you very much!  That explains it and your suggestion fixed the
> problem.  However, is this really the _right_ behaviour?

This is proper behavior. You are crossing borders from Stable to 
unstable. Portage NEVER crosses that border without being told to
explicitly, which is why you have to specify ~x86.

You're attempting to update a package from inside the Stable
branch in your first attempt. Portage only sees one possibility
because it will not assume that you meant to stay in ~x86 even
though the package was previously merged that way.

This behavior will change slightly in the 2.1 series of portage.

--NJ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [gentoo-dev] Re: emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade
  2003-05-01  9:07     ` Nick Jones
@ 2003-05-01  9:22       ` Denys Duchier
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Denys Duchier @ 2003-05-01  9:22 UTC (permalink / raw
  To: duchier; +Cc: gentoo-dev

Nick Jones <carpaski@twobit.net> writes:

> This is proper behavior. You are crossing borders from Stable to 
> unstable. Portage NEVER crosses that border without being told to
> explicitly, which is why you have to specify ~x86.

The problem had little to do with crossing between stable and testing:
it concerned the corner case where an installed ebuild has been
deleted from portage.  This non-monotonicity is causing problems.

My suggestion is that -U should mean that what is _installed_ takes
precedence unless there is an acceptable more recent version in
portage.  Whether a version is acceptable is of course controlled by
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS as you suggest.

This means that in the case I reported, it should have left tetex
alone: it should not try to downgrade it because I explicitly supplied
-U, and it should not try to upgrade it to the newer version in
testing because I did not explicitly set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86".

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Denys Duchier
Équipe Calligramme
LORIA, Nancy, FRANCE

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-01  9:32 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-04-28 20:01 [gentoo-dev] emerge -Up tetex wants to downgrade Denys Duchier
2003-04-29  0:53 ` Daniel Armyr
2003-04-29  7:06 ` Patrick Kursawe
2003-04-29 15:41   ` [gentoo-dev] " duchier
2003-04-30  5:50     ` Patrick Kursawe
2003-05-01  9:07     ` Nick Jones
2003-05-01  9:22       ` Denys Duchier

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox