[gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Jeffrey Forman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

Just this morning (afternoon/evening) on #-dev I got to talking to some
people about the usefulness of "emerge -U." I was wondering if someone
had any clue as to why its being removed? I frequently mix packages in
~x86 to test, or just to use newer revisions which are more stable and
with -U going away, I wont be able to update my machine without
downgrading a <insert explitive> load of packages.

Yes I know about editing package.keywords, but how much of a PITA is
that to have to add an entry for every package you emerge that is masked
for one reason or another.

Any thoughts, comments, or ideas of how you want to burn me at the
stake?

-Jeffrey
-- 


--------------------
Jeffrey Forman
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo Release Engin.
jforman@gentoo.org
--------------------

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1008 bytes --]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:25:00 -0400 Jeffrey Forman <jforman@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Just this morning (afternoon/evening) on #-dev I got to talking to
| some people about the usefulness of "emerge -U." I was wondering if
| someone had any clue as to why its being removed? I frequently mix
| packages in~x86 to test, or just to use newer revisions which are more
| stable and with -U going away, I wont be able to update my machine
| without downgrading a <insert explitive> load of packages.

Because it's broken. It doesn't handle forced downgrades, version number
system changes or slots properly, and it will sometimes allow a
downgrade anyway.

| Yes I know about editing package.keywords, but how much of a PITA is
| that to have to add an entry for every package you emerge that is
| masked for one reason or another.

Make a bash alias for it :)

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

On Monday 20 September 2004 1:55 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 09:25:00 -0400 Jeffrey Forman <jforman@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | Just this morning (afternoon/evening) on #-dev I got to talking to
> | some people about the usefulness of "emerge -U." I was wondering if
> | someone had any clue as to why its being removed? I frequently mix
> | packages in~x86 to test, or just to use newer revisions which are more
> | stable and with -U going away, I wont be able to update my machine
> | without downgrading a <insert explitive> load of packages.
>
> Because it's broken. It doesn't handle forced downgrades,

Half the purpose is to ignore forced downgrades, IMO...

> version number system changes

That's a bug in how Portage handles versions, not in -U

> or slots

How so?

> properly, and it will sometimes allow a downgrade anyway.

Never seen this incident.
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:24:54 +0000 Luke-Jr <luke-jr@utopios.org> wrote:
| > Because it's broken. It doesn't handle forced downgrades,
| 
| Half the purpose is to ignore forced downgrades, IMO...

No, the purpose is to ignore downgrades caused by running ~arch packages
on an arch system.

| > version number system changes
| 
| That's a bug in how Portage handles versions, not in -U

Nope.

| > or slots
| 
| How so?

AFAICS, -U is totally un-SLOT-aware.

| > properly, and it will sometimes allow a downgrade anyway.
| 
| Never seen this incident.

Try removing some ebuilds.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 20 September 2004 12:24 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
> > properly, and it will sometimes allow a downgrade anyway.
>
> Never seen this incident.

yes you have because i remember listening to you complain about it once and me 
telling you to shut up ;)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Doug Goldstein]

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

Mike Frysinger wrote:
| On Monday 20 September 2004 12:24 pm, Luke-Jr wrote:
|
|>>properly, and it will sometimes allow a downgrade anyway.
|>
|>Never seen this incident.
|
|
| yes you have because i remember listening to you complain about it
once and me
| telling you to shut up ;)
| -mike
|
| --
| gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
|
|
|
Just totally awesome that other devs can be so nice to one another on a
public mailing list.

- --
Doug Goldstein
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x179106D0
Key fingerprint = 7001 5FBF BACE 9E66 3A1C  55E0 161C FF5C 1791 06D0

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBUJhOFhz/XBeRBtARAo54AJ91vVAB/5ACMiIFeeEEtw3csTn1YQCgsHGr
NdJW262DqMCb036+BOzSi0I=
=sQGC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 21 September 2004 05:08 pm, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> Just totally awesome that other devs can be so nice to one another on a
> public mailing list.

actually if you stick around longer you'll understand me

until then, stop taking things out of context (*my* context)
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:00:45 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Tuesday 21 September 2004 05:08 pm, Doug Goldstein wrote:
| > Just totally awesome that other devs can be so nice to one another
| > on a public mailing list.
| 
| actually if you stick around longer you'll understand me

Yeah, I think spankyism is contagious... There's no known cure either :(

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Robert Moss]

Jeffrey Forman wrote:
> Just this morning (afternoon/evening) on #-dev I got to talking to some
> people about the usefulness of "emerge -U." I was wondering if someone
> had any clue as to why its being removed? I frequently mix packages in
> ~x86 to test, or just to use newer revisions which are more stable and
> with -U going away, I wont be able to update my machine without
> downgrading a <insert explitive> load of packages.
> 
> Yes I know about editing package.keywords, but how much of a PITA is
> that to have to add an entry for every package you emerge that is masked
> for one reason or another.
> 
> Any thoughts, comments, or ideas of how you want to burn me at the
> stake?
> 
> -Jeffrey

What's wrong with "emerge -U"? I'll tell you what's wrong with emerge 
-U. Its behaviour is completely broken. What happens, for example, when 
rsync-2.6.1 hits portage, is marked stable, then it's realised that it's 
broken, but "emerge -U" won't downgrade it as the ebuild is masked 
pending further development rather than removed? I'll tell you what. You 
get a ****load of whinging users on the forums and on b.g.o saying "my 
emerge sync doesn't work, wtf?!?!?!!!!11111oneoneone". There have also 
been issues in the past couple of days with the new glibc snapshots and 
the lack of "return" (it was broken). And with gcc-3.4.2 (broken). 
And... well, you get the idea. So, if you're willing to deal with all 
those "bugs" and forum posts on your own, or with your fellow intrepid 
"emerge -U" users, I'm sure neither I nor any of the other -U detractors 
will mind it staying.

The pertinent question here, of course, is: are you willing to do that? 
I think I know the answer to that already. I'll give you a hint as to 
the workload involved there: you'll be getting more bug report e-mails 
and forum PMs than you can conceivably read.

So yeah, I'll burn you at the stake ;-p Be aware that this is the 
position held by someone who's been a dev for not that long but who's 
been one of the mainstays of the Portage & Programming forum for a good 
two years. It's users that "-U" hurts, not devs.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] emerge -U getting removed?

[Philippe Trottier]

>>
>> Yes I know about editing package.keywords, but how much of a PITA is
>> that to have to add an entry for every package you emerge that is masked
>> for one reason or another.
>
>
> The pertinent question here, of course, is: are you willing to do 
> that? I think I know the answer to that already. I'll give you a hint 
> as to the workload involved there: you'll be getting more bug report 
> e-mails and forum PMs than you can conceivably read.
>
> So yeah, I'll burn you at the stake ;-p Be aware that this is the 
> position held by someone who's been a dev for not that long but who's 
> been one of the mainstays of the Portage & Programming forum for a 
> good two years. It's users that "-U" hurts, not devs.

Anyway for everyone who reads the manual the workaround (or better way 
to do) is the PORTAGE_OVERLAY copy the ebuild. Put the packages you need 
there the way you want them. Then again if goes really wrong don't 
bother the devs...

Phil

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list