Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:26:25 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@freebsd.org>, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux_base-fc4 Makefile ports/emulators/linux_base-suse-9.1 Makefile ports/emulators/linux_base-suse-9.2 Makefile ports/emulators/linux_base-suse-9.3 Makefile ports/emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage1 Makefile ports/emu Message-ID: <20061006172625.sv9cq5u6wkcs080o@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20061005181428.GB77722@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <cb5206420610050849y7bf8c8b4v87057db1e81f9004@mail.gmail.com> <15788250@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20061005174020.GA77126@xor.obsecurity.org> <90825554@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <20061005181428.GB77722@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> (from Thu, 5 Oct 2006 =20 14:14:29 -0400): > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 10:10:21PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:40:20 -0400 Kris Kennaway wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 08:11:01PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 19:49:53 +0400 Andrew Pantyukhin wrote: >> > > > On 10/5/06, Boris Samorodov <bsam@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > > > > bsam 2006-10-05 15:32:10 UTC >> > > > > >> > > > > FreeBSD ports repository >> > > > > >> > > > > Modified files: >> > > > > emulators/linux_base-fc4 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.1 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.2 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_base-suse-9.3 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage1 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage2 Makefile >> > > > > emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage3 Makefile >> > > > > x11/linux-XFree86-libs Makefile >> > > > > Log: >> > > > > Remove deleted linux_base-* and linux_locale* ports from =20 >> CONFLICTS variable >> > > > > of the remaining linux ports. >> > > > > >> > > > > Reviewed by: netchild (agreed in principle) >> > > >> > > > IMHO, you really shouldn't do that. People with old packages >> > > > installed should not worry about trying out new ports. Now you've >> > > > opened a way for their systems to be messed up. >> > > >> > > Well, we are speaking about already deleted ports. Once they were >> > > deleted and user's ports tree updated any adding/removing should be >> > > done according to /usr/ports/UPDATING (i.e. reading about default >> > > linux_base port and how to upgrade). >> > > >> > > Once a user uses fixed ports tree and pre-built packages there should >> > > be no problems. >> >> > I agree with Andrew; there should at least be a window where you keep >> > the CONFLICTS around to give users time to upgrade without installing >> > conflicting packages that mess up their system. >> >> OK, you convinced me. How long should this period be? > > At least a month, probably. Serious question(s): From when on? From the time we told the people to switch to the =20 replacement in UPDATING (affects the x11-libs port)? Or from the date =20 when the deleted ports where marked as deprecated, broken or forbidden =20 (I don't lookup which one of the deleted ones was marked how, but =20 AFAIR all of the 3 markups where used)? Or from the date where those =20 ports got removed? Beware, there may be pitfalls in the questions above. ;-) Bikesheeding: What about ports which may conflict with a removed port but get added =20 just after the removal? It doesn't contain the CONFLICTS entry and =20 probably will never see it while still being in conflict. This one month grace time also doesn't solve the problem for those =20 people which just have a look at a system when there's something =20 wrong... Based upon my experience in the last years I have to say this one =20 month buys nothing. Either they care about a system (then they don't =20 need this one month grace period), or they don't care about a system =20 (then even a year may not be enough... I know about systems which get =20 updated from 4.x to 6.x and update to ports only happen if a new ports =20 needs to be installed and it depends upon something which needs to be =20 updated to build/run the important port). It's like transporting water in a bucket with some tiny holes in the =20 bottom, if you don't need long to transport it from A to B, you will =20 get enough water to B, but the longer you need, the less will be there. Bye, Alexander. --=20 If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. =09=09-- John Kenneth Galbraith http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061006172625.sv9cq5u6wkcs080o>