public inbox for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Daniel Bradshaw" <daniel@the-cell.co.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is?
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:29:00 -0000 (UTC)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7486f8688d881f8d4a987199cb9ec8ea.squirrel@core-mail.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1255733421-30950-mlmmj-4f4db363@lists.gentoo.org>

Hi all,

It occurs to me that my work flow when doing updates follows a fairly
predictable (and probably common) pattern.
The obvious next step is to wonder why no one though of automating it...

When doing updates I tend to look through the package list and classify
things based on how likely they are to break.
Some packages, like findutils, are pretty robust and generally just get on
with working.
Other packages, like apache and ssh, need are more fragile and need plenty
of configuration.

Packages from the second group want emerging on their own, or in small
groups, the better to keep an eye out for notices about things that might
break, to update configs, and to check that they're running happily.

Once the update list is reduced to packages from the first group it's
fairly safe to run emerge -u world and not worry about things exploding
too badly.


So as I say, it occurs to me that most people probably follow some
variation of this selective upgrade method.
It might be handy to have some kind of metadata in the ebuilds that can be
used to indicate a package that is "demanding".
Then that flag could be used to highlight the package on a dep tree, or
optionally to block the emerge unless the package is specified explicitly.

`emerge -vaut @safe` would be kinda useful.

Just a thought.

Regards,
Daniel



       reply	other threads:[~2009-10-16 23:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1255733421-30950-mlmmj-4f4db363@lists.gentoo.org>
2009-10-16 23:29 ` Daniel Bradshaw [this message]
2009-10-16 23:48   ` [gentoo-dev] New ebuild metadata to mark how robust the package is? Jeremy Olexa
2009-10-17  0:50   ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill
2009-10-17  5:33   ` [gentoo-dev] " Rémi Cardona
2009-10-17  9:27     ` Tobias Klausmann
2009-10-17  9:47       ` Petteri Räty
2009-10-17  7:53   ` Patrick Lauer
2009-10-18  0:10     ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2009-10-21 12:45       ` Ladislav Laska
2009-10-21 15:21         ` Ladislav Laska
2009-10-21 16:30           ` William Hubbs
2009-10-26 12:55             ` Ladislav Laska
2009-10-26 21:49               ` Duncan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7486f8688d881f8d4a987199cb9ec8ea.squirrel@core-mail.net \
    --to=daniel@the-cell.co.uk \
    --cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox