Revisions for USE flag changes

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
39 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
We have a pull request for the devmanual that will update the revision
documentation; namely, when to create a new one:

  https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org/pull/67

The comments bring up an issue that I think can benefit from some
hindsight. Specifically, the PR says that it's OK to change IUSE without
creating a revision, because users can use --changed-use to catch it.
My immediate objection to that was that --changed-use is specific to
Portage, but let's reflect on the status quo.


== The situation now ==

  1 We tell everyone to update with either --newuse or --changed-use.

  2 Developers change IUSE without new revisions.

  3 To facilitate (1) and (2), Portage has the --changed-use and
    --newuse flags. Paludis has a family of "--keep" options to avoid
    reinstallation, e.g. --keep=if-same-metadata. And pkgcore has its
    own (different) --newuse flag.

  4 There is no specification for the features in (3), and each package
    manager has taken a different approach.


The end result is that Portage users do see the changes made to IUSE
without a revision, but at a cost:

  * They have to pass the "required" --changed-use or --newuse flags to
    every command.

  * The same cannot be said for users of other package managers.

  * Lots of PM code exists to handle this stuff.

  * Our documentation needs to describe the above (relatively)
    complicated situation.


And with one notable benefit:

  * We don't need to rename the ebuild to change IUSE, and in theory we
    can control when rebuilds happen.



== New revisions for USE flag changes ==

I suggest that in hindsight, we can do better. Suppose we require a new
revision for every change to IUSE. Then,

  * We can delete all of the PM code for --changed-use and --newuse and
    friends.

  * The documentation becomes much simpler: revbump if IUSE changes.

  * Users can omit --newuse and --changed-use from their lives.

  * All package managers now handle IUSE changes properly.

  * emerge runs a bit faster.

This has none of the downsides of the current approach. Of course, it
lacks that one benefit -- that you don't have to rename the ebuild when
you change IUSE. Now I'll try to convince you that the rename and
associated rebuilds aren't that big of a deal.


Q. But what about the rebuilds?

  For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're
  the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the
  revision and forget about the (quick) rebuilds.

  We tell everyone to use --changed-use and --newuse if they want
  things to work, so they were probably going to rebuild anyway.


Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change  IUSE?

  If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a
  branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes
  piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes
  RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway.


Q. But I work on a team, and we can't all work in different branches.

  If you work on a massive package and if you're collaborating with
  others regularly, you can commit the new ebuild masked. This is
  annoying, but is an extremely rare combination of circumstances.


== tl;dr ==

We would be better off with respect to IUSE changes and revisions if we
deleted the --changed-use and --newuse flags right now, and just
required developers to revbump when changing IUSE.

Package managers get simpler, documentation gets simpler, the user
interface gets simpler, and behavior becomes more uniform and predictable.

Please let me know what you think.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Brian Evans
On 08/11/2017 07:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> == New revisions for USE flag changes ==
>
> I suggest that in hindsight, we can do better. Suppose we require a new
> revision for every change to IUSE. Then,
>
>   * We can delete all of the PM code for --changed-use and --newuse and
>     friends.
>
>   * The documentation becomes much simpler: revbump if IUSE changes.
>
>   * Users can omit --newuse and --changed-use from their lives.
>
>   * All package managers now handle IUSE changes properly.
>
>   * emerge runs a bit faster.
>
> This has none of the downsides of the current approach. Of course, it
> lacks that one benefit -- that you don't have to rename the ebuild when
> you change IUSE. Now I'll try to convince you that the rename and
> associated rebuilds aren't that big of a deal.
I disagree about removing --newuse and --changed-use from portage.
This is not their only use.

If you happen to change the effective use system wide, USE= in make.conf
for portage, these options scan the entire system for such changes.

i.e. 'emerge --changed-use --deep @world'

Brian


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
On 08/11/2017 08:45 PM, Brian Evans wrote:
>
> I disagree about removing --newuse and --changed-use from portage.
> This is not their only use.
>
> If you happen to change the effective use system wide, USE= in make.conf
> for portage, these options scan the entire system for such changes.
>

Does --changed-use help there? I can see the argument for --newuse, but
I thought --changed-use only applied to flags that were added or removed
to installed packages (which becomes impossible, if we require new
revisions).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
On 08/11/2017 08:59 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> Does --changed-use help there? I can see the argument for --newuse, but
> I thought --changed-use only applied to flags that were added or removed
> to installed packages (which becomes impossible, if we require new
> revisions).
>

^ this doesn't make any sense, I meant that the only difference between
--changed-use and --newuse is with regard to already-installed packages
that undergo an IUSE change.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Brian Evans
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On 08/11/2017 08:59 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> On 08/11/2017 08:45 PM, Brian Evans wrote:
>>
>> I disagree about removing --newuse and --changed-use from portage.
>> This is not their only use.
>>
>> If you happen to change the effective use system wide, USE= in make.conf
>> for portage, these options scan the entire system for such changes.
>>
>
> Does --changed-use help there? I can see the argument for --newuse, but
> I thought --changed-use only applied to flags that were added or removed
> to installed packages (which becomes impossible, if we require new
> revisions).
>
--changed-use (-U)
       Tells emerge to include installed packages where USE flags have
       changed   since  installation.  This  option  also  implies  the
       --selective option. Unlike --newuse,  the  --changed-use  option
       does not trigger reinstallation when flags that the user has not
       enabled are added or removed.

The option is the same as --newuse except it ignores functionality that
you suggest to remove.  You could certainly deprecate one option or the
other if they became the same.  But the core functionality of
system-wide USE changes (by profile or user), needs to be scanned somehow.

Brian


signature.asc (1000 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Palimaka
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On 08/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Q. But what about the rebuilds?
>
>   For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're
>   the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the
>   revision and forget about the (quick) rebuilds.

I really wish people would stop trotting out this false argument. Not
everyone has the latest and greatest hardware. Rebuilds have a real cost
to end users and as such we should use them wisely.

>   We tell everyone to use --changed-use and --newuse if they want
>   things to work, so they were probably going to rebuild anyway.

Who tells everyone to use these flags and where? I never use these flags
day-to-day, only if I need that specific functionality for that reason

> Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change  IUSE?
>
>   If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a
>   branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes
>   piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes
>   RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway.

Please stop trying to force workflows on people. Using that same logic,
I can make the IUSE change in-place and it would be propagated in the
next version bump.

> Q. But I work on a team, and we can't all work in different branches.
>
>   If you work on a massive package and if you're collaborating with
>   others regularly, you can commit the new ebuild masked. This is
>   annoying, but is an extremely rare combination of circumstances.

Again, let's not try and tell teams which workflow works best for them.

> == tl;dr ==
>
> We would be better off with respect to IUSE changes and revisions if we
> deleted the --changed-use and --newuse flags right now, and just
> required developers to revbump when changing IUSE.
>
> Package managers get simpler, documentation gets simpler, the user
> interface gets simpler, and behavior becomes more uniform and predictable.
>
> Please let me know what you think.

I disagree with this change because your proposed benefits don't hold up:

>   * We can delete all of the PM code for --changed-use and --newuse and
>     friends.

As pointed out by Brian, we still need at least --changed-use even if
IUSE changes in-place are banned.

>   * The documentation becomes much simpler: revbump if IUSE changes.

We should base our policies around the cost / benefit of said policy,
not how many or few words we need to write in the devmanual about it.

>   * Users can omit --newuse and --changed-use from their lives.

They already can.

>   * All package managers now handle IUSE changes properly.

If you want to see consistent behaviour in how package manages handle
IUSE, I suggest sending patches for PMS. I don't see any problem in
portage/paludis/pkgcore handling things differently. That is the point
of having different package managers, after all.

>   * emerge runs a bit faster.

Why will it run faster?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Hans de Graaff-2
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On Fri, 2017-08-11 at 19:50 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> == New revisions for USE flag changes ==
>
> I suggest that in hindsight, we can do better.

Not all IUSE changes are equal and thus a policy that treats them all
the same doesn't make sense to me. Maintainers are in a better position
to judge whether or not a new revision is needed.

> == tl;dr ==
>
> We would be better off with respect to IUSE changes and revisions if
> we
> deleted the --changed-use and --newuse flags right now, and just
> required developers to revbump when changing IUSE.

I don't see how these flags can be removed. You are describing a
policy, but this won't change the fact that IUSE changes are still
technically possible and will still happen, intentional or otherwise.

Hans

signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michał Górny-5
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On pią, 2017-08-11 at 19:50 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> We have a pull request for the devmanual that will update the revision
> documentation; namely, when to create a new one:
>
>   https://github.com/gentoo/devmanual.gentoo.org/pull/67
>
> The comments bring up an issue that I think can benefit from some
> hindsight. Specifically, the PR says that it's OK to change IUSE without
> creating a revision, because users can use --changed-use to catch it.
> My immediate objection to that was that --changed-use is specific to
> Portage, but let's reflect on the status quo.
>
>
> == The situation now ==
>
>   1 We tell everyone to update with either --newuse or --changed-use.
>
>   2 Developers change IUSE without new revisions.
>
>   3 To facilitate (1) and (2), Portage has the --changed-use and
>     --newuse flags. Paludis has a family of "--keep" options to avoid
>     reinstallation, e.g. --keep=if-same-metadata. And pkgcore has its
>     own (different) --newuse flag.
>
>   4 There is no specification for the features in (3), and each package
>     manager has taken a different approach.
>
>
> The end result is that Portage users do see the changes made to IUSE
> without a revision, but at a cost:
>
>   * They have to pass the "required" --changed-use or --newuse flags to
>     every command.
>
>   * The same cannot be said for users of other package managers.
>
>   * Lots of PM code exists to handle this stuff.
>
>   * Our documentation needs to describe the above (relatively)
>     complicated situation.
>
>
> And with one notable benefit:
>
>   * We don't need to rename the ebuild to change IUSE, and in theory we
>     can control when rebuilds happen.
>
>
>
> == New revisions for USE flag changes ==
>
> I suggest that in hindsight, we can do better. Suppose we require a new
> revision for every change to IUSE. Then,
>
>   * We can delete all of the PM code for --changed-use and --newuse and
>     friends.
>
>   * The documentation becomes much simpler: revbump if IUSE changes.
>
>   * Users can omit --newuse and --changed-use from their lives.
>
>   * All package managers now handle IUSE changes properly.
>
>   * emerge runs a bit faster.
>
> This has none of the downsides of the current approach. Of course, it
> lacks that one benefit -- that you don't have to rename the ebuild when
> you change IUSE. Now I'll try to convince you that the rename and
> associated rebuilds aren't that big of a deal.
>
>
> Q. But what about the rebuilds?
>
>   For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're
>   the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the
>   revision and forget about the (quick) rebuilds.
>
>   We tell everyone to use --changed-use and --newuse if they want
>   things to work, so they were probably going to rebuild anyway.
>
>
> Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change  IUSE?
>
>   If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a
>   branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes
>   piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes
>   RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway.
>
>
> Q. But I work on a team, and we can't all work in different branches.
>
>   If you work on a massive package and if you're collaborating with
>   others regularly, you can commit the new ebuild masked. This is
>   annoying, but is an extremely rare combination of circumstances.
>
>
> == tl;dr ==
>
> We would be better off with respect to IUSE changes and revisions if we
> deleted the --changed-use and --newuse flags right now, and just
> required developers to revbump when changing IUSE.
>
> Package managers get simpler, documentation gets simpler, the user
> interface gets simpler, and behavior becomes more uniform and predictable.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
from revbumps.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny

signature.asc (1007 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
In reply to this post by Brian Evans
On 12/08/2017 03:11, Brian Evans wrote:

> --changed-use (-U)
>        Tells emerge to include installed packages where USE flags have
>        changed   since  installation.  This  option  also  implies  the
>        --selective option. Unlike --newuse,  the  --changed-use  option
>        does not trigger reinstallation when flags that the user has not
>        enabled are added or removed.
>
> The option is the same as --newuse except it ignores functionality that
> you suggest to remove.  You could certainly deprecate one option or the
> other if they became the same.  But the core functionality of
> system-wide USE changes (by profile or user), needs to be scanned somehow.
+1

There are use-cases for --changed-use / --newuse other than changed IUSE.

I find it useful to easily rebuild affected packages when changing USE
flags in make.conf. If the flags were removed, would we have a good
alternative?

Paweł


signature.asc (844 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
In reply to this post by Michał Górny-5
On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
> from revbumps.
>

There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
come with a new revision.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
In reply to this post by Paweł Hajdan, Jr.
On 08/12/2017 04:39 AM, Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote:

>>
>> The option is the same as --newuse except it ignores functionality that
>> you suggest to remove.  You could certainly deprecate one option or the
>> other if they became the same.  But the core functionality of
>> system-wide USE changes (by profile or user), needs to be scanned somehow.
>
> +1
>
> There are use-cases for --changed-use / --newuse other than changed IUSE.
>
> I find it useful to easily rebuild affected packages when changing USE
> flags in make.conf. If the flags were removed, would we have a good
> alternative?
>

I simply overlooked the global USE change in make.conf because IMO it's
a nonsense operation. But people do it, and we support it, so for the
sake of argument forget I mentioned removing --newuse. The --changed-use
flag would be redundant, though (it would do the same thing as --newuse).


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Toralf Förster-2
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On 08/12/2017 11:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
come with a new revision.

IMO  every significant(*) change should yield into a revision bump.


(*) == comments and echo arguments changes are not significantly, all others however are

-- 
Toralf
PGP 23217DA7 9B888F45

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
In reply to this post by Michael Palimaka
On 08/12/2017 12:22 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:

>
>> Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change  IUSE?
>>
>>   If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a
>>   branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes
>>   piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes
>>   RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway.
>
> Please stop trying to force workflows on people. Using that same logic,
> I can make the IUSE change in-place and it would be propagated in the
> next version bump.
>

I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I'm just asking for
feedback. If it turns out to be a stupid idea, then so be it.

If it's understood that you can make IUSE changes but that they'll only
be propagated on the next version bump, then there would be no problem.
But we're about to document a policy that says it's OK to do things that
wouldn't normally be OK, because --changed-use is there to save us:

  The examples of changes that can be done without a revision bump are:

    ...

    * adding a new USE flag or removing an existing one (since change
      in USE flags is going to trigger --changed-use rebuild),

If developers operate under that assumption and if you don't use
--changed-use, you're going to run into problems eventually.


>>   * emerge runs a bit faster.
>
> Why will it run faster?

The developer now indicates that IUSE has changed, so portage doesn't
have to figure it out on its own.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Rich Freeman
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
>> from revbumps.
>>
>
> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
> come with a new revision.
>

My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing,
but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of
something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump.  The easy
counter-argument to your suggestion is "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it."

As others have pointed out, the portage flags are useful even if we
make this change, so they're not going away.  Also, I don't see any
portage maintainers saying that they want this change, or that they'll
remove any code if this change is made.

The only potential benefit I see is QA.  However, I've been running
with --changed-use for eons (and was running with --newuse before
that) so I couldn't tell you what happens in practice when you don't
use those settings.

This policy change would make my life easier, because for big packages
it would encourage maintainers to not make IUSE changes until they do
revbumps, which would save me a build.  I'm running on relatively old
hardware at this point so these rebuilds actually do cost me quite a
bit of time.  I'm not sure that not using --changed-use is a great
option though as it will make it that much harder to keep things
consistent when I do modify my package.use/make.conf.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Rich Freeman
In reply to this post by Michael Palimaka
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Michael Palimaka
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08/12/2017 09:50 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> Q. But what about the rebuilds?
>>
>>   For most packages, the rebuilds simply don't matter. Unless you're
>>   the maintainer of libreoffice, firefox, chromium, etc. -- just do the
>>   revision and forget about the (quick) rebuilds.
>
> I really wish people would stop trotting out this false argument. Not
> everyone has the latest and greatest hardware. Rebuilds have a real cost
> to end users and as such we should use them wisely.
>

Agree, but maintainers would have the option to just not change IUSE
at all until the next time they would revbump anyway.  That saves
rebuilds for those using --changed-use today.

I'm not convinced that it is actually that easy for people to avoid
--changed-use, and if they are using it then they're going to
potentially get exposed to these rebuilds when IUSE changes.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Palimaka
In reply to this post by Michael Orlitzky
On 08/12/2017 08:16 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:

> On 08/12/2017 12:22 AM, Michael Palimaka wrote:
>>
>>> Q. But what if I maintain firefox, and I need to change  IUSE?
>>>
>>>   If the IUSE change isn't important, just make the new revision in a
>>>   branch and wait to commit it later when there are more changes
>>>   piled up. If it is important (like if its default value changes
>>>   RDEPEND), then it would have required a revision anyway.
>>
>> Please stop trying to force workflows on people. Using that same logic,
>> I can make the IUSE change in-place and it would be propagated in the
>> next version bump.
>>
>
> I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I'm just asking for
> feedback. If it turns out to be a stupid idea, then so be it.
>
> If it's understood that you can make IUSE changes but that they'll only
> be propagated on the next version bump, then there would be no problem.
> But we're about to document a policy that says it's OK to do things that
> wouldn't normally be OK, because --changed-use is there to save us:
>
>   The examples of changes that can be done without a revision bump are:
>
>     ...
>
>     * adding a new USE flag or removing an existing one (since change
>       in USE flags is going to trigger --changed-use rebuild),
>
> If developers operate under that assumption and if you don't use
> --changed-use, you're going to run into problems eventually.

--changed-use is an optional flag and portage works just as well without
it. Please provide examples of such problems.

>
>
>>>   * emerge runs a bit faster.
>>
>> Why will it run faster?
>
> The developer now indicates that IUSE has changed, so portage doesn't
> have to figure it out on its own.

Please provide some numbers to back up this claim. Even if we assume
portage will run faster because we can remove --changed-use (which we
can't, because as pointed out in other posts we still need this flag),
surely any time savings gained there will be lost by pointless rebuilds?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Palimaka
In reply to this post by Rich Freeman
On 08/12/2017 08:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>
>>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
>>> from revbumps.
>>>
>>
>> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
>> come with a new revision.
>>
> This policy change would make my life easier, because for big packages
> it would encourage maintainers to not make IUSE changes until they do
> revbumps, which would save me a build.  I'm running on relatively old
> hardware at this point so these rebuilds actually do cost me quite a
> bit of time.  I'm not sure that not using --changed-use is a great
> option though as it will make it that much harder to keep things
> consistent when I do modify my package.use/make.conf.
>

At least now you have the option to run without --changed-use if you
want. If inline IUSE changes are completely banned, you will definitely
see more pointless rebuilds on your old hardware. In my experience most
developers make a change when there's a change to be made, and don't
"save up" changes until some arbitrary delta is reached. We've already
an increase in revbumps like this in other areas where inline changes
are being discouraged.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Rich Freeman
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Michael Palimaka <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 08/12/2017 08:29 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Michael Orlitzky <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2017 03:03 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Please provide some examples of recent in-place USE changes that benefit
>>>> from revbumps.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no single example. Things only get simpler if *all* USE changes
>>> come with a new revision.
>>>
>> This policy change would make my life easier, because for big packages
>> it would encourage maintainers to not make IUSE changes until they do
>> revbumps, which would save me a build.  I'm running on relatively old
>> hardware at this point so these rebuilds actually do cost me quite a
>> bit of time.  I'm not sure that not using --changed-use is a great
>> option though as it will make it that much harder to keep things
>> consistent when I do modify my package.use/make.conf.
>>
>
> At least now you have the option to run without --changed-use if you
> want. If inline IUSE changes are completely banned, you will definitely
> see more pointless rebuilds on your old hardware.

True, since we now have --changed-use (I think this is a relatively
recent portage feature - before there was only --newuse).

Obviously if I stopped using --changed-use then my installed
configuration would drift out of sync with the settings in
/etc/portage.  I'm not sure that this causes any other issues in this
case - there certainly have been issues historically in these
situations but I think most of them have been eliminated.  Changed
dependencies can definitely cause problems, but I'm less certain that
changed IUSE does.

> In my experience most
> developers make a change when there's a change to be made, and don't
> "save up" changes until some arbitrary delta is reached. We've already
> an increase in revbumps like this in other areas where inline changes
> are being discouraged.
>

I imagine that such practices vary.  I know I personally tend to save
up minor changes for major revisions to reduce the need for testing.

Ultimately though I think the real question is whether not revbumping
has the potential to break things.  I does for dependency changes
which is why that policy change was made (and I still run with
--changed-deps anyway because I don't trust devs to not mess this up).
I think we do need to have more clear evidence that IUSE changes break
things before we should consider requiring revbumps for this.

It would be nice if big packages waited for revbumps to make IUSE
changes, but honestly the occassional chromium rebuild doesn't bother
me that much.  Most of it happens with cron anyway.

--
Rich

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Michael Orlitzky
In reply to this post by Rich Freeman
On 08/12/2017 06:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing,
> but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of
> something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump.

There's an unfixed security vulnerability with USE=foo, so we drop the
flag temporarily. Users who had USE=foo enabled will keep the vulnerable
code installed until they update with --changed-use or --newuse.

Even with the devmanual improvements, the advice we give is conflicting:

  * If you fix an important runtime issue, do a revbump.

  * If you drop a USE flag, don't do a revbump.

What if you fix a runtime issue by dropping a flag? It's more confusing
than it has to be: the USE flag exception interacts weirdly with all the
other rules.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Revisions for USE flag changes

Duncan-42
Michael Orlitzky posted on Sat, 12 Aug 2017 10:14:18 -0400 as excerpted:

> On 08/12/2017 06:29 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> My gut feeling is that the change you want is probably a good thing,
>> but it will never happen if you can't provide a single example of
>> something bad happening due to the lack of a revbump.
>
> There's an unfixed security vulnerability with USE=foo, so we drop the
> flag temporarily. Users who had USE=foo enabled will keep the vulnerable
> code installed until they update with --changed-use or --newuse.
>
> Even with the devmanual improvements, the advice we give is conflicting:
>
>   * If you fix an important runtime issue, do a revbump.
>
>   * If you drop a USE flag, don't do a revbump.
>
> What if you fix a runtime issue by dropping a flag? It's more confusing
> than it has to be: the USE flag exception interacts weirdly with all the
> other rules.

Bad example as it's a security vuln, which requires masking/removing
vulnerable versions, which will require a version bump in ordered to
prevent downgrades if it was the latest visible for a (stable or ~arch)
keyword.

So the version bump is effectively mandatory due to security overrides in
any case, and that it was fixed by a temporary USE flag drop doesn't
change things at all.  If that security-override isn't explicit in
current documentation, that'd be the bug, not the fact that use-flag
drops don't on their own require a version-bump.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman


12
Loading...