From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BAA113827E for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 00:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6736E0ABF; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 00:12:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jacques.telenet-ops.be (jacques.telenet-ops.be [195.130.132.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBCF2E0AAF for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 00:12:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TOMWIJ-GENTOO ([94.226.55.127]) by jacques.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id zCCM1m00d2khLEN0JCCM3F; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 01:12:21 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 01:12:20 +0100 From: Tom Wijsman To: patrick@gentoo.org Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dependencies default to accept any slot value acceptable (:*), can we default to :0 instead? Message-ID: <20131209011220.24a565cf@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <52A5076E.4070109@gentoo.org> References: <20131208175438.100112a0@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> <52A5076E.4070109@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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_/BpQZHA=36dJzcxkz+QrZ_Z_"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: a050fe35-7c68-4d2f-9811-ac306beceb21 X-Archives-Hash: ef0d5f315b237398b17b49af2e9e9832 --Sig_/BpQZHA=36dJzcxkz+QrZ_Z_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 07:57:34 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 12/09/2013 12:54 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >=20 > > 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] >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. > >=20 > > 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? > >=20 > > One thing that directly comes to mind is that dependencies that > > have no SLOT=3D"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. >=20 > 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=3D"0"; technically, restricting these to SLOT=3D"0" will not cause > > breakage, it might however cause some blockers. We'll have to look > > closer into how we can alleviate this result. >=20 > 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? --=20 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 --Sig_/BpQZHA=36dJzcxkz+QrZ_Z_ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSpQrkAAoJEJWyH81tNOV9oXkH/A8Jx5JfkzT++tClwmcJCORN h91+da8rw+vGT6m3ulL51um0KDb3rnY39xi5f4+Xw2IIQiNpiABaZJGdE2IRTXcJ 1gDIKJJOawCB3p3FLbtzwN83juaoAB2ibeizdmErOdWg0q4Wnuz6TGT5YL5cp3fi dsFSoLjFl9yAiTE1/oPZ9C55cPb4Vrt/h2L6VvvJSQXfqgodJOgAhoYe7azz7wzm 5THZgsDnKSHT6A2Hc5Yf+suZ+gNR3OFcieEwO/YXyg4B2blpTUo5TXkOV8jEgjPE hRaNFlz8pg+EixAP0yyTVMaJDJqOCgpNbFqXqTxMDcs8CsNT++P/iXh5A+0cEX8= =YuQx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/BpQZHA=36dJzcxkz+QrZ_Z_--