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 B92CF138247 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:35:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E8520E0A7F; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:57 +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 3E1E3E0A7D for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1418033EFC6 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.950, 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 Q3JpXxMwZ4Az for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:50 +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 A3A0633F310 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:34:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VjUP5-0005wz-2U for gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:34:43 +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 14:34:43 +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 14:34:43 +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 13:34:18 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <528DD07E.3010603@plaimi.net> <528DF698.6090203@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: c58f562c-0c3d-4528-8256-ba65892fd782 X-Archives-Hash: 99b66735213f736f8a1c25ba7fbda628 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] > [1] > [2] -- 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