Bug 359391 – qt4-build.eclass should check for --buildpkgonly before downgrade sanity check

• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description alk 2011-03-18 16:20:07 UTC]

I'm not shure if it could be implemented in an eclass or it's an emerge bug.
It seems to me that just building binaries (emerge --buildpkgonly) should skip downgrade protection, as no potential damage exists.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.emerge -B =x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1

Actual Results:  
 * qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.6.2.tar.gz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-) ...                                                                      [ ok ]
 * Package:    x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1
 * Repository: gentoo
 * Maintainer: [e-mail]
 * USE:        elibc_glibc exceptions glib iconv kernel_linux pch qt3support ssl userland_GNU x86
 * FEATURES:   sandbox
 * Sanity check to keep you from breaking your system:
 *   Downgrading Qt is completely unsupported and will break your system!
 * ERROR: x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1 failed (setup phase):
 *   aborting to save your system
 * 
 * Call stack:
 *                 ebuild.sh, line  56:  Called pkg_setup
 *   qt-core-4.6.2-r1.ebuild, line  69:  Called qt4-build_pkg_setup
 *          qt4-build.eclass, line  80:  Called die
 * The specific snippet of code:
 *                      die "aborting to save your system"
 * 
 * If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info =x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1',
 * the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv =x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1'.
 * The complete build log is located at '/var/tmp/portage/x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1/temp/build.log'.
 * The ebuild environment file is located at '/var/tmp/portage/x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1/temp/die.env'.
 * S: '/var/tmp/portage/x11-libs/qt-core-4.6.2-r1/work/qt-everywhere-opensource-src-4.6.2'

[Comment 1 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2011-03-18 17:04:13 UTC]

The eclass contains:

# @MAINTAINER:
# Ben de Groot <[e-mail]>,
# Markos Chandras <[e-mail]>,
# Caleb Tennis <[e-mail]>
# Alex Alexander <[e-mail]>

Wouldn't that be nicer with @AUTHOR:, with @MAINTAINER: <[e-mail]>? It looks like various eclasses use different approaches - it's just that I would think assigning to qt@ works better than assigning to four separate developers.

[Comment 2 Davide Pesavento 2011-03-18 17:50:25 UTC]

(In reply to comment #1)
> The eclass contains:
> 
> # @MAINTAINER:
> # Ben de Groot <[e-mail]>,
> # Markos Chandras <[e-mail]>,
> # Caleb Tennis <[e-mail]>
> # Alex Alexander <[e-mail]>
> 
> Wouldn't that be nicer with @AUTHOR:, with @MAINTAINER: <[e-mail]>? It
> looks like various eclasses use different approaches - it's just that I would
> think assigning to qt@ works better than assigning to four separate developers.

Yes indeed.

[Comment 3 Johannes Huber (RETIRED) 2012-01-27 08:04:54 UTC]

The sanity check prevents to get a crippled system. The only way to downgrade is to remove Qt altogether and merge again. This is true for source and binary downgrades. 

So conclusion for binaries is: Remove all x11-libs/qt-* packages and merge those what binpkg wants to merge.