From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:18 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$b8df1$65c2f13b$eda1a7d5$7486e042@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 528DF698.6090203@plaimi.net
Alexander Berntsen posted on Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:03:36 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote:
>> I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change as
>> you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless.
> How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].
I read comment 10, and am objecting based on it, because there'd be no
way to do what I'm doing currently and which my workflow depends on,
which you call irrelevant (below).
>> 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!)
> Irrelevant.
>
>> 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!
> Irrelevant.
>
>> 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.
> I don't understand this sentence, but I think you *don't* understand
> what I am saying. Please read comment 10[1], in which I present
> examples.
1) Because the dependency calculations take time, I normally use --ask so
I don't have to have portage redo those calculations if I like what its
telling me it's going to do.
2) Under no circumstances do I want portage rewriting masks, etc, on its
own, not even with config-protect.
3) Despite that, I find the suggestions it makes saying what it /thinks/
it needs unmasked useful -- I just want to write them to the file I want,
with the comment I want (sometimes with a bit different atom, too), which
portage wouldn't do.
4) You're saying emerge --ask foo would write the config, and I don't see
any way to turn that off without also turning off portage's suggestion
generation as currently controlled by --autounmask (which is on by
default), or without switching --ask to --pretend. Your proposal is
broken behavior as far as I'm concerned, because I find portage's
suggestions (current autounmask) useful, not the entirely useless you
seem to think they are without automatically writing them, which I do NOT
want portage to do under /any/ circumstances.
5) There needs to be a way to get portage's current emerge --ask
--autounmask foo (without --autounmask-write) behavior, because that's
/exactly/ what I use and find most useful. But I don't particularly care
what the default is since I can configure it as needed, as long as this
current behavior remains possible.
>> 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.
> Enabling --autounmask-write by default is a terrible idea. It will
> result in a lot of spam. Furthermore, consider comment 13[2].
I'd tend to agree, but in that case, why are you wanting to do away with
the ability to have portage spit out its opinion, without having portage
actually do the write, while using --ask?
> [0] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c6>
> [1] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c10>
> [2] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c13>
--
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-21 13:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-21 9:21 [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask Alexander Berntsen
2013-11-21 11:19 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Duncan
2013-11-21 12:03 ` Alexander Berntsen
2013-11-21 13:34 ` Duncan [this message]
2013-11-21 14:23 ` Alexander Berntsen
2013-11-22 5:37 ` Duncan
2013-11-22 8:29 ` Alexander Berntsen
2013-11-21 16:30 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Paul Varner
2013-11-21 16:46 ` Alexander Berntsen
2013-11-21 21:05 ` Paul Varner
2013-11-21 20:06 ` Zac's status (Was: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCHES] Remove --autounmask, rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask) Pacho Ramos
2013-11-22 8:51 ` Alexander Berntsen
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='pan$b8df1$65c2f13b$eda1a7d5$7486e042@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=gentoo-portage-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