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 C0717138247 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C06BE0B01; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:53 +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 68FA8E0AE8 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A32E233EE7D for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.695, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 ZGiX7F-PNdv3 for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:45 +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 59F2633EE1A for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Vdxp2-0000GA-0Z for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:46:40 +0100 Received: from lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de ([160.45.42.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:46:40 +0100 Received: from vaeth by lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Nov 2013 08:46:40 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Martin Vaeth Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: do subslots improve user-experience? Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 07:46:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <5274EA64.6000404@gentoo.org> <5274FB18.1070102@gmail.com> <5276AA1D.2020907@gmail.com> <5278C523.8070906@gmail.com> <52794E07.80008@gmail.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lounge.imp.fu-berlin.de User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-26 (Linux) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Archives-Salt: 1fb662fa-24e4-47f5-9ccd-75f00e5087ff X-Archives-Hash: 27d87f0d6607520413dcfc402b08bfef Alan McKinnon wrote: > > You don't have to keep explaining subslots to me But not every reader knows the details - this is not a private conversation. > What I have maintained all along is that I don't see the solution as > tested to be production-ready It has been in ~arch for many months, and now it is becoming stable. This is how testing works in gentoo. As I tried to explain, even if devs do it wrong, there is not much harm which can happen except for useless rebuilds or that the advantage of subslots is missed by mistake. In practice, it turns out that the portage error messages tend to confuse users more now: The reason being that, although portage would be able to resolve subslot dependencies automatically, it does not show the resolved ones if it breaks before because of an error, and so users see a lot of errors which actually are none but occur only as a side effect of a completely different problem. Although this behavior of portage happens not only for subslots, the number of "false positives" has increased due to subslots. This leads to the wrong perceiption which one can see in the forums. But misleading error messages due to non-finished resolving were a problem which existed also before in portage and which should be attacked anyway, if it can be.