Re: make replace

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
 > > With the new flag, make replace can stop using -f.  I honestly do not
 > > understand why anyone who is concerned with consistency would think
 > > that's a bad thing -- with my change, the only inconsistency that arises
 > > is the "replaced dependency ==> unsafe_depends" one for packages with
 > > exact dependencies.  As dholland points out, for those using make
 > > replace/pkg_rr, that's a) temporary and b) a different consistency rule
 > > that is very useful.
 > 
 > You are basically saying "whatever the dependency currently is, it is
 > wrong".

Yes; that is what UNSAFE_DEPENDS means. UNSAFE_DEPENDS is not very
specific, but there is no reason evident so far that it needs to be
any more specific than it is.

 > I already gave examples for why that reasoning is wrong.

You have offered a number of incorrect examples; you have not yet
shown any case where a correct incremental update results in a
problem. In fact, the last time I asked you for such examples, you
gave me examples that relied on not having completed the incremental
update, which is absurd.

 > What you are consistently ignoring is that pkg_rr is not able to
 > automatically handle any of the cases where the single-package-replace
 > approach does not work. If it would handle that case, we wouldn't have
 > to have this discussion.

This is irrelevant. Doing incremental updates by hand works perfectly
well. So does the partially-automated scheme I use.

If you are concerned about particular shortcomings of pkg_rr, why are
we arguing about "database inconsistencies" in the package tools?

 > The whole notation of "unsafe" dependencies boils down to either the
 > tool just want to ignore what the package manifest says OR we are back
 > to the issue of open-ended library dependencies.

No, it does not. See above.

 > > So please let's bring this back to the point at hand: what specifically
 > > is wrong with adding -D and having destdir-mode make replace use it?

Greg, can you just commit it? There is no question that it's an
improvement over using -f.

 > It is a huge step backwards from actually making incremental updates
 > safe.

No, it is not. There is no way to make incremental updates "safe" in
the padded-cell sense of "safe" you appear to be using.

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost