From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BAB9A138334 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 10:28:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 28EFAE0900; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 10:28:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67789E08F7 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 10:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:52d3:51dd:1b2:5ddb] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:52d3:51dd:1b2:5ddb]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA5B334D86B for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2019 10:28:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <767ba1d7b9e90282e2020f0cb24d8c747539605c.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] unsanctioned python 2.7 crusade From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 11:28:06 +0100 In-Reply-To: <6aec2d93-84c5-633e-ab16-61ae2ea16f69@gentoo.org> References: <83443938-904e-7915-6e5f-c8e2d3ae61f0@gentoo.org> <175076460.jlIWfiDEfW@tuxbrain> <6aec2d93-84c5-633e-ab16-61ae2ea16f69@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.32.4 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 83a6ddef-dc4f-4d3e-a0ab-89bf3731793c X-Archives-Hash: e60569fb4c1a5547efddb33f2bd596c4 On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 21:28 +0100, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: > On 2019-12-06 21:10, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > > Just so we're on the same page, a recent example of what some > > people > > suggesting to keep py27 ad nauseam are asking users to deal with: > > [...] > > WARNING: One or more updates/rebuilds have been skipped due to a > > dependency > > conflict: > > Yes, like said, at some point you cannot prevent that. Remember when > I > bumped libvpx to v1.8.0 and people yelled at me because they are now > seeing that message all the time (If you are using gnome you probably > know the same msg which triggers for unicode stuff which I am also > responsible for) because I bumped that package but not everything > supports that version yet? For having maintained packages that often have this issue for years, I must say this is a very bad idea: You are asking (or doing yourself) consumer packages to have < deps on your package. This falsely gives the impression that the non-latest version is still maintained. This also makes removing this old version very error prone (we do have tools to check for that but those are not in the standard workflow). Not sure how portage handles this, but negative deps (<, =, ! & co) are much harder to solve than purely positive ones -- PM probably uses some heuristics but then this has some limitations and if the number of such deps grows too much it may fail to solve them or do the right thing. I think it is a much better way to package.mask the newest version of your lib until all consumers work with it, or those that don't are masked. This is how we handled such transitions before portage improved its handling of negative deps and is IMHO still better. Alexis.