Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Saturday 30 September 2006 20:06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? # this package wont work on this profile bar/foo Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask. Which means that users might want to unmask certain versions found in the top-level profile.mask, and also unmask some of the packages masked in a profile. i dont understand what you're trying to say here ... the behavior you're describing sounds correct to me ... provide some examples ? fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs fbsd/package.mask:nothing fbsd/6.1/packages:nothing fbsd/6.1/package.mask:=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 fbsd/6.2/packages:nothing fbsd/6.2/package.mask:nothing Actually, you need to mask versions, too ... sure ... not that people should be downgrading in the first place (glibc ebuilds prevent this), but you are correct Note to Danny: releng controls default-linux, okay, but there are other profiles than those, hardened and Gentoo/Alt. The decision should have been taken by all the three of us, not unilaterally. there is no central body for profiles ... and more projects than just these three are affected -mike pgp9ALIJgzB2L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Monday 02 October 2006 16:03, Jason Stubbs wrote: 1) Specifying sys-libs/glibc-2.4 in packages *does* mask =sys-libs/glibc-2.4 and thus a corresponding entry in package.mask ... is redundant -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4 -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4 If I were you, I'd rather not mention that bug. Really don't see what you are trying to say here with that link. Plus kindly note *Important: do NOT use this thread for considerations on QA behaviour, this is NOT what this post is thought for.* in the original mail. So now if you could move to the points mentioned by Flameeyes in his email, it would be really useful. Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases. Thanks. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:37:59 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Additionally, it would be nice if these discussions involved | concerned arches and were not done ex post in future cases. Uh, Jakub, part of the design of the devmanual was that it would be possible for the right people to update it to codify existing practice without arguments from the peanut gallery who like to claim that because they've been getting away with it it's allowed. See also conflicting USE flags and static metadata requirement... This isn't a change, it's a documentation of how things are. You've already wasted too much of other people's time on this. You're not getting any more of mine. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4 You bring up the point that you don't take any argument? The argument is still valid, nobody provided a reason for the change. I don't take anybody's word as a granted, so I don't care if Mike thinks the change is fine. I want some reasons. If you want to waste even more time, continue this way. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpxTna6Qastg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:40:44 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Saturday 30 September 2006 14:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149536#c4 | | You bring up the point that you don't take any argument? | | The argument is still valid, nobody provided a reason for the change. It is not a change in policy. It's a codification of existing practice. Unfortunately, since most of this stuff didn't get written up years ago when it happened, not everyone is aware of said practice and so a few profiles from developers who weren't around at the time don't honour it. -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail: ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 06:40:07 +0200 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there are profiles relying on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state some). For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a profile. [snip] Personally I dislike the masking aspect of the packages file, as it's mostly redundant, problematic in some cases (e.g. requring a specific gcc versions masks all older gcc versions implicitly) and I think having a single file to serve two purposes (set system and masking packages) is crappy. Also overriding profile masks (yes, this is valid sometimes) isn't intuitive either as there is no unmask feature. This isn't connected to the mentioned bug at all btw. However I understand your reasoning about unmasking things with package.unmask, the question is how common that use case would be? Marius -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Saturday 30 September 2006 00:40, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote: For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a profile. isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? # this package wont work on this profile bar/foo # these versions are needed in this profile =cat/meow-1* Example: Gentoo/FreeBSD relies on profiles masking for sys-freebsd/freebsd-* packages, as you should *not* use freebsd-lib 6.2 on the 6.1 profile, for instance; AMD64 no-multilib profiles use package.mask to mask packages that are known to be broken on that profile. In case of Gentoo/FreeBSD, it also means to have 3x entries for forcing versions of the packages on users. i dont get it ... if you mask the versions in package.mask, why do you need a packages entry at all ? fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs fbsd/package.mask:nothing fbsd/6.1/packages:nothing fbsd/6.1/package.mask:=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 fbsd/6.2/packages:nothing fbsd/6.2/package.mask:nothing Another reason I'd see for retain the current behaviour is that users are known to unmask stuff via package.unmask to try might-be-broken versions. so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior because users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect users from shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior more complicated is a waste of time -mike pgpFy0pw8RGlW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
On Saturday 30 September 2006 19:39, Mike Frysinger wrote: isnt that the point of putting a comment above a mask ? # this package wont work on this profile bar/foo Indeed, but the problem is that the masks are all normalised in one big mask. Which means that users might want to unmask certain versions found in the top-level profile.mask, and also unmask some of the packages masked in a profile. fbsd/packages:sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs fbsd/package.mask:nothing fbsd/6.1/packages:nothing fbsd/6.1/package.mask:=sys-freebsd/freebsd-mk-defs-6.2 fbsd/6.2/packages:nothing fbsd/6.2/package.mask:nothing Actually, you need to mask versions, too ... so what you're arguing is that we should retain the existing behavior because users might try to unmask something properly ? trying to protect users from shooting themselves in the foot by making the profile behavior more complicated is a waste of time Uh, it's not making the profile behaviour more complicated, it's retaining the current behaviour of profiles. But seems I'm in minority on this. Still, if we're going to change this behaviour, it's the case to do it properly, by also updating the behaviour of portage itself, and document this properly (as in, give a reasoning for this change of behaviour). Note to Danny: releng controls default-linux, okay, but there are other profiles than those, hardened and Gentoo/Alt. The decision should have been taken by all the three of us, not unilaterally. -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpoypLYD5e1A.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Profile masking and profiles package.mask
This is a discussion to follow up bug #149508 [1]. The bug points to a behaviour change in handling of the profiles file, that, in my opinion at least, needs to be discussed, as there are profiles relying on the old behaviour (Gentoo/FreeBSD's to state some). For what I can tell, the current behaviour has the advantage of providing a different masking reason for packages that are *needed to some version* for the profile to be complete, and for packages that are know not to work on a profile. Example: Gentoo/FreeBSD relies on profiles masking for sys-freebsd/freebsd-* packages, as you should *not* use freebsd-lib 6.2 on the 6.1 profile, for instance; AMD64 no-multilib profiles use package.mask to mask packages that are known to be broken on that profile. In case of Gentoo/FreeBSD, it also means to have 3x entries for forcing versions of the packages on users. Another reason I'd see for retain the current behaviour is that users are known to unmask stuff via package.unmask to try might-be-broken versions. Considering that -* masking is deprecated, this means that if 2.4 profiles released a new version of linux-headers with some experimental support (okay, unlikely, but let's say it happens), it should go in package.mask.. user put linux-headers in package.unmask without a version (which is usually correct, as you might want to unmask newer revisions too), but find himself with linux-headers 2.6 unmasked. I cannot find myself any reason for such a behaviour change, but I'm open to be proven wrong. *Important: do NOT use this thread for considerations on QA behaviour, this is NOT what this post is thought for.* [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=149508 -- Diego Flameeyes Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/ Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE pgpFhi8MeOx9S.pgp Description: PGP signature
