On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 08:47:16PM +0100, Richard Watson wrote: > > Richard Watson said: > >> "Matthias F. Brandstetter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But emerge -u IS on purpose. > > What I mean is that I want to do major upgrades when I'm ready, not > when the package maintainers decide that I'm ready.
The package maintainers do not decide when you're ready to type "emerge -u world". > I agree that the admin is responsible, I carefully read every list of > potential upgrades before I commit, but I think it would be a good > safety measure to not allow things to upgrade where potential > breakages might occur. That seems to me to be allowing portage to make > life a little easier for the admin. emerge -u world *always* introduces potential for breakage. emergers beware! > > Shouldn't it be the admin's responsibility to make sure he/she knows > > what packages are being upgraded BEFORE the upgrade? Why must > > portage save them from themselves? > > I'm not suggesting this. What I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense > to unnecessary upgrades which may break something the default action. I don't see the difference between upgrading apache and upgrading, say, baselayout, portage, X, or anything else for that matter. They all might break something.. > > Sorry but I disagree with you. Apache 2 is not a different product. It's a > > major version change to Apache. (Same with mysql and PHP) > > It applies to different applications to different extents. In the case > of vmware everyone who upgrades will have their installation broken > until they go to purchase a licence. They are clearly therefore > different products since they are not covered by the same license. Yes, you're right about vmware, but I'm with Matthias about apache. Gentoo wants to say "we suggest apache 2 for the general case." > I think it all boils down to whether you think that checking through > lists of packages is reliable enough and how much portage should help > the admin. I think most professional admins will know about many > upgrades before they arrive enough to know whether they want them or > not and to have prepared accordingly. The sysadmin who is watching his server carefully will certainly be checking through his lists of packages before he upgrades, and for the forseeable future he should definitely be expected to do so. The less-concerned user who runs the gentoo-recommended version of things should get apache2 when the gentoo devs decide it's a good general time to upgrade. To me, the issue is that "emerge apache" should emerge the version of apache that gentoo recommends, not an old compatibility version. > But since we have many duplicated ebuilds - (e.g. gaim and gaim-cvs, > mozilla-firebird, mozilla-firebird-cvs) to make life convenient for > those who want to stay on the cutting edge, could a little > reorganisation not make it more convenient for those of us who don't? It looks to me that Gentoo is trying to understand the exact roles of and relationships between USE flags, package versions, and arch KEYWORDS. It's going to take time, but hopefully when it's all figured out we'll have reached some nice intuitive definition which makes it very clear how to get the safety you're asking for. Bear with the devs while this gets worked out. Cheers, Owen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
