Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead?

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2890 bytes --]

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:34 +0800
Patrick Lauer <patrick@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  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]