[gentoo-dev] repoman default

[gentoo-dev] repoman default

[Michael Sterrett]

repoman should default to the -I behavior: discuss.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman default

[Zac Medico]

On 06/24/2013 10:40 PM, Michael Sterrett wrote:
> repoman should default to the -I behavior: discuss.

Does it make sense to have with ebuilds in the tree with unsatisfiable
dependencies? If so, should we distinguish between conditional and
unconditional dependencies? Note that if the dependencies are
conditional, you can already use package.use.mask to suppress the
repoman warnings.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:40:38 -0400
Michael Sterrett <mr_bones_@gentoo.org> wrote:

> repoman should default to the -I behavior: discuss.


wont this disable important regular checks also?
foo is masked by package.mask, bar depends on foo. repoman -I wont
catch a broken dep in bar.

IMHO it should do the -I check in addition to the current ones and print
warnings/errors.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman default

[Zac Medico]

On 06/25/2013 07:47 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:40:38 -0400
> Michael Sterrett <mr_bones_@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> repoman should default to the -I behavior: discuss.
> 
> 
> wont this disable important regular checks also?

The -I (--ignore-masked) option only disables dependency checks for
masked "parent" packages.

> foo is masked by package.mask, bar depends on foo. repoman -I wont
> catch a broken dep in bar.

No, we don't currently have an option like that, and I don't think we
want one like that.

> IMHO it should do the -I check in addition to the current ones and print
> warnings/errors.

The -I option only disables checks that are normally enabled.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman default

[Alexis Ballier]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:33:21 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 06/25/2013 07:47 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 01:40:38 -0400
> > Michael Sterrett <mr_bones_@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> repoman should default to the -I behavior: discuss.
> > 
> > 
> > wont this disable important regular checks also?
> 
> The -I (--ignore-masked) option only disables dependency checks for
> masked "parent" packages.
> 
> > foo is masked by package.mask, bar depends on foo. repoman -I wont
> > catch a broken dep in bar.
> 
> No, we don't currently have an option like that, and I don't think we
> want one like that.
> 
> > IMHO it should do the -I check in addition to the current ones and
> > print warnings/errors.
> 
> The -I option only disables checks that are normally enabled.

ooops yes, thanks. I got confused and thought it was --without-mask...

Alexis.