On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 23:39:13 +0100 Thomas Matthijs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Daniel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > step 4. > > package.move torsmo -> conky > > This will do _bad_ things if someone has both installed > Bah, here it's ~ okay because torsmo versions are lower than the ones of conky: after the move, there will be two conky packages installed in the same SLOT, and thus the oldest one (actually torsmo) will get autocleaned soon after by emerge. I still don't really see the benefit of the package.move related steps though. Moving from torsmo to conky will require some manual work by the users anyway (~/.xinitrc change, new config location, etc.), and doing half the job automagically at some arbitrary time just adds confusion for users: - those who will have notice the package.mask comments during the wait after step 1 will already have done the full transition by themselves. - those who didn't will just see their torsmo binary suddenly disapearing (and given their unlikely visibility, i don't think einfos in conky ebuild solve that), which imo is worst than just keeping an obsolete package installed. Imho, package.move should only be used for changes that are strictly internal to the portage tree, and not for those which "break" users' applications. So i still prefer the simpler, usual, deprecation plan, like what was done for xawdecode->xdtv for instance, despite they were also sharing the same code base (an upstream name change actually): 1. package.mask torsmo with a comment about conky 2. wait long enough 3. drop torsmo from the tree -- TGL. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
