From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21AB9138247 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 452CAE0A8E; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ABFAE08CA for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C680A33EF98 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.951, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [IPv6:::ffff:127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nrI5lj-sjVXz for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9484633F14E for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:20:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjSIj-0007l1-Nh for gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:20:01 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:20:01 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:20:01 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <528DD07E.3010603@plaimi.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.140 (Chocolate Salty Balls; GIT 6e6fd84 /usr/src/portage/src/egit-src/pan2) X-Archives-Salt: b7056870-671c-44e0-babd-561d7fa2c6dc X-Archives-Hash: 1994b356b7d336998342c8738443d9df Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:21:02 +0100 as excerpted: > After talking to zmedico privately, and raising the issue and discussing > it with people in bug #481578[0], I implemented the behaviour described > in a comment[1] on said bug. > > I sent this to zmedico almost two months ago, but it doesn't look like > he's coming back any time soon, so I'm sending it here and ask someone > to review and commit it (a role zmedico has typically played for me, as > well as being my "mentor" and guide and so on and so forth for Portage > hacking). > > [0] > [1] > I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change as you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless. FWIW, I have a very specific portage layout and there's no way "dumb automation" could put what I'd consider the appropriate write in what I'd consider the appropriate file, nor do I want it to try! (And even if it could do it perfectly, I want to /know/ what my config is, and the best way for me to /know/ my config is if the only way it changes is if I change it myself!) OTOH, current default autounmask (without write) behavior, having portage tell me what (it thinks) I need to unmask and/or what package.use flags it thinks I need is fine, and often quite helpful indeed, as long as it's not actually trying to actually WRITE it anywhere! If I read the above correctly, what you're proposing would kill that behavior entirely if --ask is used, defaulting to writing (fine if it can be turned off), with no way (at least no way with --ask instead of --pretend) to tell portage to make the suggestion it with --autounmask (which is the default now), with absolutely no chance it's going to attempt to actually rewrite my config on its own, period. OTOH, Zac's suggestion, to simply enable autounmask-write by default but allow the user to set --autounmask-write=n if they want, would be just fine, since I could put that in default options and be done with it. Tho even that's a sufficiently drastic change from current behavior that I'd expect a good changelog entry mentioning it, and preferably a news item, as it has the potential to screw up people's configs if they aren't paying attention when the default changes. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman