From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MyxUk-0001or-0n for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53765E06F7; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10220E06F7 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9864967647 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:50:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.112 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.112 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.513, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DVtjciCZQYb1 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C62186760A for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1MyxUW-00018Z-3r for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:49:52 +0200 Received: from 64-201-202-141.regn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca ([64.201.202.141]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:49:52 +0200 Received: from dirtyepic by 64-201-202-141.regn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:49:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Ryan Hill Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is? Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:50:17 -0600 Message-ID: <20091016185017.6193ee7b@gentoo.org> References: <1255733421-30950-mlmmj-4f4db363@lists.gentoo.org> <7486f8688d881f8d4a987199cb9ec8ea.squirrel@core-mail.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/dtCjmrsoa3w5n5V.GrToM4T"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 64-201-202-141.regn.hsdb.sasknet.sk.ca X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.6; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 41c6d3ec-1ad2-4ff3-87be-44a2afcf7bf3 X-Archives-Hash: 2775b853c65436bb577ef98bf0662776 --Sig_/dtCjmrsoa3w5n5V.GrToM4T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:29:00 -0000 (UTC) "Daniel Bradshaw" wrote: > Hi all, >=20 > It occurs to me that my work flow when doing updates follows a fairly > predictable (and probably common) pattern. > The obvious next step is to wonder why no one though of automating it... >=20 > When doing updates I tend to look through the package list and classify > things based on how likely they are to break. > Some packages, like findutils, are pretty robust and generally just get on > with working. > Other packages, like apache and ssh, need are more fragile and need plenty > of configuration. >=20 > Packages from the second group want emerging on their own, or in small > groups, the better to keep an eye out for notices about things that might > break, to update configs, and to check that they're running happily. >=20 > Once the update list is reduced to packages from the first group it's > fairly safe to run emerge -u world and not worry about things exploding > too badly. >=20 >=20 > So as I say, it occurs to me that most people probably follow some > variation of this selective upgrade method. > It might be handy to have some kind of metadata in the ebuilds that can be > used to indicate a package that is "demanding". > Then that flag could be used to highlight the package on a dep tree, or > optionally to block the emerge unless the package is specified explicitly. >=20 > `emerge -vaut @safe` would be kinda useful. >=20 > Just a thought. As Jeremy said this is really subjective. I think what might be a more reasonable thing to ask for is a way to mark particular upgrades as potentially troublesome. Personally I just alias e=3D'emerge -avl' and pay attention to the changelogs. --=20 fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 --Sig_/dtCjmrsoa3w5n5V.GrToM4T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkrZFM8ACgkQiqiDRvmkBmJWvQCgolbdrPPEu+Rmd9vt1wjlMrlm exkAoL8ubis/c7t5FQaYeCoxsVh2NsLg =+ucp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/dtCjmrsoa3w5n5V.GrToM4T--