Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage?

["Andrey Gerasimenko" <gak@kaluga.ru>]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:46:23 +0300, Mike Myers <fluffymikey@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> I understand what you say, but I'm not sure I got my point across very
> well.  Let's say I have a server that has various things installed like
> apache with the 2.0 branch, mysql with the 4.0 branch, and PHP with
> the 4.xbranch.  If I do an emerge -u world on a machine with these, at
> some random
> point in time when the devs decide the newer branch is stable, then any  
> one
> of these will be upgraded to the next branch.  What I am asking, is why
> wouldn't it be better to have it where I will only stay on the current
> branch for that profile, and only move to the next branch when I change  
> the
> profile?
>

I do not see any linkage between a profile, which is actually just a set  
of use variables , and application versions since there is no version data  
in a profile. (Actually there is, like minimal package versions and  
required stage 1 packages, but adding maximum versions to profile will  
make it unusable for most users) That is, profile is not a branch.

I also do not see how a branch can be created based on a profile or a  
snapshot of a portage tree. For example, if a server profile is being  
used, what PHP should be in the branch? Or, better, if I decide to install  
Qt on a server, which definitely does not have KDE, should it be 3 or 4?  
The only base for branch type versioning I see is the current set of  
installed packages.

You want to update world and, at the same time, not to update anything. I  
can understand that if your goal is not to "update world", as Portage  
thinks when you say "-u world", but to install only bug and sequrity  
fixes, as Portage does if you mask pakeges properly. As far as I remember,  
according to this list some work to treat sequrity updates differently is  
under way. As for bug fixes, I do not see how they can be separated from  
features.

I feel that what you call "branch" Portage often  calls "slot". For  
example, PHP is slotted, so that if you have PHP 4 and PHP 5 is being  
installed, your 4 does not go away.

As for ebuilds going modular, I beleive that each case is to be treated  
separately. For example, KDE is going modular now. For 3, both modular and  
monolithic ebuilds are maintained, for 4 - only modular ones. No problems  
at all, right?

I still do not see that any changes to portage are necessary. My guess is  
that your request can be formulated as a set of requests like

- this app is not slotted, it should be

- I want a script that will examine my world and mask everything so that I  
can upgrade only the last 2 version numbers

- I want another script to manage the masks set by the previous one

I hope that will be easier for developers to understand.

-- 
Andrei Gerasimenko
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list