Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Agrrr! Something wich I disslike about the ebuilds!
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
steveb
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 4564

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 3:20 pm    Post subject: Agrrr! Something wich I disslike about the ebuilds! Reply with quote

What is wrong with the version numering in Gentoo? Why can't I install package-[major].[minor].[micro]-r[ebuild-revision] and be sure that if I remerge the SAME version in 1 month, everything will be the same?

Why do the Gentoo developers change a ebuild and then they don't increase the revision?

Just today I removed PostgreSQL from one of my servers and then remerged net-mail/postfix net-mail/courier-imap net-ftp/pure-ftpd dev-php/mod_php dev-php/php. And what do I see? Changed rc.init scripts all over the place! But I did not update or upgrade or installed a fresh version of the packages. NO! SAME version as I had bevore! EXACTLY SAME VERSION WITH EXACTLY SAME REVISION!

Or on my desktop I had kdesu not working correctly. And after some search in the forums, I see that the ebuild for kdelibs changed and has now a fix for that problem. But once again: The ebuild version did NOT change! Same ebuild version as before, but diffrend functionality!

Or I remember the time when VMWare needed this any-any driver to work correctly with the 2.6.x series of kernel. And all the time the exactly same ebuild got changed and changed and changed to include an new version of the any-any driver, instead of adding a new revision of the ebuild and include the new any-any driver that way.

I can understand that alot of people would freak out, if they would need to recompile a package, just because something changed wich is not a big issue. But Gentoo is in my eye not an hobby OS. But why does it behave sometime like this then? I miss consisteny! I miss it big time.


Okay... now I feel relieved, but still not happy about the versioning mess.


cheers

SteveB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robmoss
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 2634
Location: Jesus College, Oxford

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe we should have:

[code]package-[major].[minor].[micro]-r[ebuild-revision].[ebuild-fix-revision]

Then you could set an option in /etc/make.conf to either accept or reject ebuilds with new fixes, and save -rX for more noteworthy updates? Would this not make sense? So, you could have =media-sound/audacity-1.2.0-r1.0 as the first revision, then =media-sound/audacity-1.2.0-r1.1 would be the same, except for an addition to the warning about unicode support to add something to do with wxPython as well as wxGTK, and then =media-sound/audacity-1.2.0-r2.0 for the potential eventual fixing of unicode support. Make sense?
_________________
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.

emerge -U will kill your Gentoo
ecatmur, Lord of Portage Bash Scripts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveb
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 4564

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
package-[major].[minor].[micro]-r[ebuild-revision].[ebuild-fix-revision]
could be an possible way of the solution, but only if you can turn ON/OFF a flag in the portage to show/not-show [ebuild-fix-revision] as a update when you do emerge -u.

but to be honest: I think that the [ebuild-revision] is enought for handling revisions. I expect a ebuild with the name package-1.1.0-r1 to be exactly the same. No matter when I emerge it. The MD5 sum is protecting me from downloading/installing a wrong source and the [ebuild-revision] number is showing me the revision of the ebuild. When now something changes, I EXPECT the revision to go up and get unmasked in the portage. Any change to the ebuild package-1.1.0-r1 should automaticly lead to package-1.1.0-r2 (if the package stays in the same version (aka minor, major, micro does not get changed)). I hate this unprofessional version numbering in the portage. Gives me the a bad feeling.

Sorry to name it that way. But I can't find any other word for such ebuild tweaking. I want to trust portage and not be skeptical about the ebuild all the time.

I mean: somebody must be in charge of that at Getnoo. Who is responsable about the versioning in portage? Why does this happen? Why? What is the benefit or purpose of this mess?

Or in other words: How am I supposed to maintain a set of Gentoo Linux installations, when I can't relay on portage and the versioning inside portage?


Can any Gentoo developer help me out and please explain why this is the way it is now? And if this will be changed in the future, to avoid this?

cheers

SteveB



btw: Since this (the mess with the ebuild versioning) is done by one or more Gentoo developers, the additional [ebuild-fix-revision] will not bring the solution. Because it is easy to NOT follow that rule and still leave the revision and the ebuild-fix-revision at the same level and still change the content of the ebuild!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
robmoss
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 2634
Location: Jesus College, Oxford

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveb wrote:
btw: Since this (the mess with the ebuild versioning) is done by one or more Gentoo developers, the additional [ebuild-fix-revision] will not bring the solution. Because it is easy to NOT follow that rule and still leave the revision and the ebuild-fix-revision at the same level and still change the content of the ebuild!


What, even if contravening it means losing your developer status? It all depends upon how you enforce it.

Plus, I stated that the on/off flag you refer to should be an option in /etc/make.conf. The revision bumps are only allowed when it's deemed necessary to force all users to upgrade. Personally, I think that's fair enough - AS LONG AS you can track the changes and update where and when necessary, which is currently impossible using portage.

What would be even nicer would be a new package.something file in /etc/portage which allowed you to set change-tracking on a per-package basis...
_________________
Reality is for those who can't face Science Fiction.

emerge -U will kill your Gentoo
ecatmur, Lord of Portage Bash Scripts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveb
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 4564

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

robmoss2k wrote:
What, even if contravening it means losing your developer status? It all depends upon how you enforce it.
Well... This would be bad! Because developers are not falling down from heven. But, enforcing it in some other way would be great. How about a 3 stage system?
Code:
[cvs] --> [integration/test] --> [production]

and from cvs to production, you only can add or delete a ebuild, but not change it!

robmoss2k wrote:
Plus, I stated that the on/off flag you refer to should be an option in /etc/make.conf. The revision bumps are only allowed when it's deemed necessary to force all users to upgrade. Personally, I think that's fair enough - AS LONG AS you can track the changes and update where and when necessary, which is currently impossible using portage.
Well... the changelog functionality exists, but once again: Developers need to use it. I would love to see them beeing forced to add their stuff there, but since it is not enforced.... no joy.

robmoss2k wrote:
What would be even nicer would be a new package.something file in /etc/portage which allowed you to set change-tracking on a per-package basis...
No comment ;)


cheers

SteveB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
revertex
l33t
l33t


Joined: 23 Apr 2003
Posts: 806

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank's to clarify this point steveb, i've experience this before with some ebuilds but haven't figure WHY
the exactly same ebuild (version-revision-...) should install a package with a different config file.

I experienced this reemerging some packages just one day before installed, not one month like you experienced.

If gentoo is a toy for some users who don't care about fix things, some of us plan or use gentoo in production machines, and this annoyance seriously compromisse gentoo as a distro of choice.

Is gentoo development lacking their quality in this terrible way?sad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveb
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 4564

PostPosted: Mon May 03, 2004 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

revertex wrote:
Thank's to clarify this point steveb, i've experience this before with some ebuilds but haven't figure WHY
the exactly same ebuild (version-revision-...) should install a package with a different config file.

I experienced this reemerging some packages just one day before installed, not one month like you experienced.
I have seen that before, but now it starts to hurd me. And beeing quite does not help me. This is the reason why I posted now an message about that.

revertex wrote:
If gentoo is a toy for some users who don't care about fix things, some of us plan or use gentoo in production machines, and this annoyance seriously compromisse gentoo as a distro of choice.
Planing? NO WAY! Moving ground = Impossible to plan!

revertex wrote:
Is gentoo development lacking their quality in this terrible way?sad.
Hey! Nothing is lost. If they (the developer or the Gentoo responsibile persosn) realize our need for this and they ACT, then this is a win-win situation. I hope they will read this and I hope they will take actions on that.


cheers

SteveB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mhodak
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 1213

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steveb,
I agree with you on this issue, but posting in forums does not change anything, since most probably no develper will read it. You should submit this into bugzilla to get developers attention and receive some kind of feedback. Complaining in the forums will not change anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steveb
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 4564

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mhodak wrote:
steveb,
I agree with you on this issue, but posting in forums does not change anything, since most probably no develper will read it. You should submit this into bugzilla to get developers attention and receive some kind of feedback. Complaining in the forums will not change anything.
Developers do come here and read the forum. Probably not all of them and probably not that frequent, but still..... they read the forum.

Anyway... I opend Bug 49935.

cheers

SteveB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mhodak
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 1213

PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just added myself as CC in the bug 49935. Hopefully someone responsible will respond.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum