From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GynRo-0003o5-M0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:52:49 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id kBPAoKVm009661; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:50:20 GMT Received: from lancia.kaluga.ru (mx.kaluga.ru [62.148.128.2]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBPAmHbL003428 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:48:17 GMT Received: from gaktux.gakdomain ([62.148.150.64]) by lancia.kaluga.ru (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBPAmAUh066498 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:48:13 +0300 (MSK) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:48:27 +0300 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] anti-portage wreckage? From: "Andrey Gerasimenko" Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=windows-1251 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <89646b4a0612241752i127b3c29iec9f88687085c6c@mail.gmail.com> <89646b4a0612250046v4ab20e76r50d1ae95cb6a5b89@mail.gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <89646b4a0612250046v4ab20e76r50d1ae95cb6a5b89@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.10 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: ff6b6449-5d64-418f-84d0-2cb3b4bc396b X-Archives-Hash: 15596e212eee41094be704fe448eb984 On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 11:46:23 +0300, Mike Myers 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