[gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Some packages, have patches from external sources, enabled/disabled by 
USEs combinations.
  one for all iptables,  it has an IUSE="ipv6 static extensions".
     The "extensions" use enables patches from "l7" , "grsecurity" and 
an "imq".
  iptables 1.3 is out from few days, but the patches (at least "l7") 
apply only to 1.2.9 sources.

If the developer want to keep the extensions inside the iptables-1.3 he 
must wait for releases that apply to 1.3 version.
may be doable instead of waiting an alternative solution like:

use "extensions" && KEYWORDS="-*"

or if this break portage cache implement some work-around that make it 
possible a similar syntax?
the wanted result is to have portage select the best version that 
fullfill your requirements.

Best regards
Franecsco Riosa

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Simon Stelling]

Hi,

Francesco Riosa wrote:
> use "extensions" && KEYWORDS="-*"

I'm pretty sure this will break things (TM). Why not a simple use 
extensions && ewarn "Currently, there are no additional patches used 
with USE=Extension, so I'm going to ignore it."

Greetings,

blubb
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Simon Stelling ha scritto:

> Hi,
>
> Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
>> use "extensions" && KEYWORDS="-*"
>
>
> I'm pretty sure this will break things (TM). Why not a simple use 
> extensions && ewarn "Currently, there are no additional patches used 
> with USE=Extension, so I'm going to ignore it."
>
> Greetings,
>
> blubb

because previous version had that functionality and users are using it.
- Put a new version *without* that functionality make users unhappy
- Don't let disponible a new version because of functionalityes that 
they are not using make that users unappy


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 565 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:17 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> because previous version had that functionality and users are using it.
> - Put a new version *without* that functionality make users unhappy
> - Don't let disponible a new version because of functionalityes that 
> they are not using make that users unappy

Simple: if you need that particular functionality you must use a version
which include it (meaning: do not use ~ARCH if you are not prepared to
take the consequences).

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:37 pm, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:17 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> > because previous version had that functionality and users are using it.
> > - Put a new version *without* that functionality make users unhappy
> > - Don't let disponible a new version because of functionalityes that
> > they are not using make that users unappy
>
> Simple: if you need that particular functionality you must use a version
> which include it (meaning: do not use ~ARCH if you are not prepared to
> take the consequences).

yep ... and this is why we have all the files in /etc/portage/ so you can lock 
in older versions for a while

if these features are really that critical, why dont you forward port them 
yourself ? :p
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Mike Frysinger ha scritto:

>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:37 pm, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:17 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>because previous version had that functionality and users are using it.
>>>- Put a new version *without* that functionality make users unhappy
>>>- Don't let disponible a new version because of functionalityes that
>>>they are not using make that users unappy
>>>      
>>>
>>Simple: if you need that particular functionality you must use a version
>>which include it (meaning: do not use ~ARCH if you are not prepared to
>>take the consequences).
>>    
>>
>
>yep ... and this is why we have all the files in /etc/portage/ so you can lock 
>in older versions for a while
>  
>
In this case iptables-1.3 is missing, it's not a old version, it's the 
new one :p since I'm using a plain iptables I've modified the old one 
and used that to install the 1.3 version.
see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=80556

>if these features are really that critical, why dont you forward port them 
>yourself ? :p
>-mike
>  
>
Because I miss know-how on that window. :-( 

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 16:02 +0100, Simon Stelling wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Francesco Riosa wrote:
>> use "extensions" && KEYWORDS="-*"
>
>I'm pretty sure this will break things (TM). Why not a simple use 
>extensions && ewarn "Currently, there are no additional patches used 
>with USE=Extension, so I'm going to ignore it."
>

The problem with ewarns is that they'll be missed during an emerge -uvD
world.  They'll be there, but somewhere back a few hundred pages.
Really, for something like that, you need to fail, and make the user
remove extension from their use flags.

Daniel

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Colin Kingsley]

Why not just make a new iptables package with no "extensions" IUSE,
and then make a rev-bump when the new patches are available?

True some users will lose functionality, but if the package simply
does not have that functionality, the Gentoo package maintainer is not
at fault. Users who insist on the extra functionality can mask the new
version untill patches are released and a rev-bump made.

Colin
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Colin Kingsley ha scritto:

>Why not just make a new iptables package with no "extensions" IUSE,
>and then make a rev-bump when the new patches are available?
>
>True some users will lose functionality, but if the package simply
>does not have that functionality, the Gentoo package maintainer is not
>at fault. Users who insist on the extra functionality can mask the new
>version untill patches are released and a rev-bump made.
>
>Colin
>  
>
I will bring some examples on this package but they can be applyed to 
others too.
Bob is a sys-admin.
Bob manage a firewall happily up and running with gentoo, Bob use 
iptables emerged with USE="extensions" because he want and use l7 to let 
users only web browsing on port 80.
Bob is a good admin so he updates very often his firewall probably with 
"emerge -uDav --newuse world", the day that iptables-1.3 comes out 
*without* l7 support he is running that update, ... but Jenny the nicest 
girl of the whole office maybe of the planet is finally asking him to 
have a coffe with she.
Bob has sucessfully done that emerge so many times that he decided to 
not loose that opportunity and so tadaaa the screen will left alone and 
all messages outputted from ebuilds ignored.
We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:41 pm, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.

then bob reads `man portage` and masks iptables-1.3 with /etc/portage/ thus 
forcing `emerge iptables` to downgrade to the previous versions which still 
supports USE=extensions
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Mike Frysinger ha scritto:

>On Wednesday 02 March 2005 01:41 pm, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>  
>
>>We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.
>>    
>>
>
>then bob reads `man portage` and masks iptables-1.3 with /etc/portage/ thus 
>forcing `emerge iptables` to downgrade to the previous versions which still 
>supports USE=extensions
>-mike
>  
>
bob already know how to downgrade but he can't because his boss has 
crashed its chair on his head and now he his at the hospital.
bad boss, bad world

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 20:47 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> bob already know how to downgrade but he can't because his boss has 
> crashed its chair on his head and now he his at the hospital.
> bad boss, bad world

In your scenario, Bob is an Admin.  If Bob were *my* admin and had not
taken the time to read the ChangeLog for the package and not made
changes on the test network before making them to the production
network, Bob would be looking for a new job after that coffee.  Also, if
Bob were not smart enough to not stay with the stable portion of Gentoo,
which is designed to not have feature loss and other such problems, but
was instead using the "testing" branch on production servers, then Bob
would be looking for a new job and I would be looking for a smarter
administrator.

The whole point is that if you are blindly upgrading *anything* that you
rely on for day-to-day work, that really there is only one person to
blame, and that is yourself.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Chris Gianelloni ha scritto:

>On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 20:47 +0100, Francesco Riosa wrote:
>  
>
>>bob already know how to downgrade but he can't because his boss has 
>>crashed its chair on his head and now he his at the hospital.
>>bad boss, bad world
>>    
>>
>
>In your scenario, Bob is an Admin.  If Bob were *my* admin and had not
>taken the time to read the ChangeLog for the package and not made
>changes on the test network before making them to the production
>network, Bob would be looking for a new job after that coffee.  Also, if
>Bob were not smart enough to not stay with the stable portion of Gentoo,
>which is designed to not have feature loss and other such problems, but
>was instead using the "testing" branch on production servers, then Bob
>would be looking for a new job and I would be looking for a smarter
>administrator.
>
>The whole point is that if you are blindly upgrading *anything* that you
>rely on for day-to-day work, that really there is only one person to
>blame, and that is yourself.
>  
>
Chris,
  Really we are not speaking about me, I blindly make all kind of crappy 
stuff but _**never**_ on production system. Seldom on backup of 
production systems. I like the risk but not when it compromise other 
person than me.

*The* whole points are
that there is no way of choose  a  set  of  features  (via USE flag) and 
expect that emerge keep updated my system obeying to my needs.
the stable/unstable stuff it's *not* a point what happen if upstream of 
say "l7" goes away for six month? your latest stable version will *stop* 
for six month.
Maybe iptables-1.3 must become stable before, and *ONLY* the people who 
want "l7" must stop at 1.2.9
* this * is * the * point *

Now you can say that it's easy or not, possible or impossible, you can 
ever say do it yourself (but expect that I do it).
What you can*not* say is that is a stable/unstable problem, or that the 
user must check before the user *will* check before he/she should not be 
costrained to mess with its /etc/portage/package.mask for *this* kind of 
stuff.

my apologies if that was not clear before, hoping that now it's better 
explained


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Simon Stelling]

Francesco Riosa wrote:
> We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.

A good admin doesn't leave his box because of a woman :P
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Simon Stelling ha scritto:

> Francesco Riosa wrote:
>
>> We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.
>
>
> A good admin doesn't leave his box because of a woman :P

with theese few words you have destroyed my last hope to became a good 
admin one day :P

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Colin Kingsley]

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:41:17 +0100, Francesco Riosa
<francesco@pnpitalia.it> wrote:
> Bob is a sys-admin.

Oh yay, a story.

> Bob manage a firewall happily up and running with gentoo, Bob use
> iptables emerged with USE="extensions" because he want and use l7 to let
> users only web browsing on port 80.
> Bob is a good admin so he updates very often his firewall probably with
> "emerge -uDav --newuse world", the day that iptables-1.3 comes out
> *without* l7 support he is running that update, ... but Jenny the nicest
> girl of the whole office maybe of the planet is finally asking him to
> have a coffe with she.

If he is a good admin, he knows how to use package.mask, he knows he
should look at what he is updating before he does it, and the nicest
girl in the whole office would never talk to the sysadmin,

> Bob has sucessfully done that emerge so many times that he decided to
> not loose that opportunity and so tadaaa the screen will left alone and
> all messages outputted from ebuilds ignored.

So I guess Bob isn't realy so smart, eh?

> We can bet that Bob will not be happy after finished to have the coffe.

No. no he wouldn't
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE & KEYWORDS relation

[Francesco Riosa]

Colin Kingsley ha scritto:

> [snip]
>
>If he is a good admin, he knows how to use package.mask, he knows he
>should look at what he is updating before he does it, and the nicest
>girl in the whole office would never talk to the sysadmin,
>  
>
Opinable, some girls are attracted from the charm of sysadmins.
More seriously, we can expect a new version of net-firewall/iptables 
without extensions ~ARCH masked?
Only for curiosity, on my firewall I've used 1.3.0-rc1 before and 1.3.0 
then.

>  
>
>>Bob has sucessfully done that emerge so many times that he decided to
>>not loose that opportunity and so tadaaa the screen will left alone and
>>all messages outputted from ebuilds ignored.
>>    
>>
>
>So I guess Bob isn't realy so smart, eh?
>  
>
All we have moments in who we are not smart ;-) someone more someone 
less (maybe this is why this thread have been started)

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list