-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 30/06/12 11:16 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Saturday 30 June 2012 07:22:39 Zac Medico wrote: >> On 06/30/2012 04:07 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: >>> I would like to discuss a bit more issues like: >>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=423087 >>> >>> Even if there are "a lot" of packages that can cause this >>> breakage when downgraded, I think it should be prevented and >>> package managers shouldn't try to downgrade this kind of >>> packages as they will later cause a total breakage. People is >>> not supposed to know that downgrading some package system will, >>> for example, have an unusable gcc. >> >> It seems like a die in pkg_pretend would serve pretty well. > > doing it on a per-ebuild basis doesn't make much sense. a simple > version compare (like we do in glibc as an exception to this rule > because of its much wider implication) is incorrect: the new > version might not introduce any new symbols compared to the old > one, and even if it has, other packages might not have been linked > against the new symbols. -mike
Instead of preventing downgrade wouldn't it make more sense to figure out a way to force a rebuild on @system or @toolchain or whatever bits are broken as soon as the downgrade occurs, rather than just making it a one-way ticket? If we could sort this out (and sub-slots may help with this, but probably we'll need some extra work too) then we could probably support switching from ~arch to arch at a whim.. Not necessarily a bad goal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk/vNKcACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDDgQD/XhgB1G6rIYXuhR/EnJDLyfgL NKfW6TifMcJr9wHFNooA/2RDkxOSFePAHy81IxGWfjvpb2wNw4b/IzDwK8u4hcAS =Q3Wd -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
