Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Council meeting 2015-04-14: call for agenda items

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2175 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:

*snip*

> No.  In neither option would you move foo-1 to ~arch.  In neither
> option would you get repoman complaints.
> 
> In option 1 you would delete foo-1.  Users of the arch will start
> getting errors when they try to do updates, since foo-2 is keyword
> masked.  Users could just accept ~arch for foo-2 to fix this most
> likely, though it may not work in some cases.  The arch team can clean
> up the depgraph at some point as well.  You don't ever get repoman
> complaints because the arch is set to dev/exp, and is ignored by
> repoman.
> 
> In option 2 you would STILL delete foo-1, and you would also change
> all of its reverse dependencies to ~arch as well.  Users of the arch
> would get errors when they try to do updates, since many packages they
> have installed are now keyword masked, and foo-2 is also keyword
> masked.  Users would have to accept ~arch for all those packages to
> restore normal operation.  Later the arch maintainers could restore
> the depgraph to what it was before while stabilizing foo-2, which
> involves fixing many packages potentially, and even if it all ends up
> as stable again users have tons of cruft in their config files.  You
> don't ever get repoman complaints because the depgraph was always
> consistent.

Option 2 could get complicated really fast.
Consider a reverse dependency that has multiple forward dependencies:

For example, foo-2 adds some functionality that depends on libbar. bas
and bat also depend on libbar. libbar, bas and bat go stable before the
deadline for foo-2. Given your description, it sounds like I would rm
foo-1 and move libbar, bas and bat back to ~. Is that correct?

If that's the case, option 1 is the best option.

If we are willing to consider it, there may be another option. I haven't
tested this yet, I'm just thinking off the top of my head.

3. Option 1, but don't set the profile status to dev or exp. The
repoman messages that you would get on a stable arch if you do this
might guide you to the remaining packages you need to move back to ~.

Thoughts?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]