Re: news item: Introduction of app-alternatives/coreutils

On 3/22/26 8:44 AM, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2026 at 22:29, Eli Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> The update should be transparent to most users, read on for further
>>> details.
>>
>> If it is truly transparent, I wonder that we need a news post.
> 
> "should be transparent for most". We're being cautious here, coreutils
> is a critical package. And even for those trouble-free updates, it's
> worth mentioning the upcoming file collision warning and how to
> actually switch if people are interested, like we did for previous
> app-alternative ebuilds.


This would be the fourth time we add app-alternatives packages. And the
*first* time that we create a news item for it at all, let alone
specifically create a news item not to tell people the app-alternatives
exists, but try to advise them how to edit a USE flag.

It is genuinely unprecedented.

No, the link you offer is *not* doing what you say it is doing.


>>> If uutils-coreutils is available for your arch and profile, you
>>> can select it by setting `app-alternatives/coreutils -gnu uutils` in
>>> your packages.use.
>>>
>>> If you want to postpone or revert the transition, mask the
>>> corresponding ebuild versions:
>>
>> ... this sounds like advice for "the default is switching to uutils, how
>> do I opt out" -- but the actual thing is opt-in.
> 
> I'll see if I can make this clearer.
> 
>> Please remove ALL advice on using uutils, and add it to a wiki page instead.
> 
> That feels overkill. IMHO showing how to select the alternative is a
> basic bit of info that deserves to be here. And in the end, it's just
> a USE flag, no need for a wiki page.


If it's just a USE flag why do we need a news item to explain it?

Of course you feel that it is a "basic bit of info that deserves to be
there". It is natural to feel that way about something that you would
personally do. But this email thread is not for convincing uutils users
that uutils deserves advocacy... this email thread is for discussing
what advice Gentoo can give users so that their world update doesn't
break or otherwise make their system behave in an unexpected way that
goes against their preexisting configuration.

uutils is an *opt-in* change, not an opt-out one. There might be an
argument for describing the change and how to tweak USE flags to select
particular outcomes, if the point was to tell users how to *opt out* of
a change that was otherwise coming.

Since the news item should NOT explain how to switch to uutils, if you
want to offer guides for doing so, your remaining option is probably a
wiki page. I do not actually care if you create a wiki page as long as
you remove it from a news item.


>> ... but this is more distracting messages regarding "nothing changed".
>> None of this is useful to news readers.
> 
> I feel that "completions might not work as you expect" is an
> interesting gotcha to document, but if there's consensus I can remove
> that paragraph.


But completions work fine? Why should I, or anyone, care that
completions for newly created binaries that exist for internal
implementation details of how app-alternatives provides switchable
symlinks, don't get completed?


>> Overall I recommend completely re-aligning this News item to match the
>> purpose of the news: tell people affected by a default/mandatory change
>> to packages/repos/profiles they have installed or used, that *they* will
>> *need* to do or be careful about something.
> 
> I feel that's already essentially what this new item is doing.


... obviously I don't feel the way you do or I wouldn't object that the
news item needs changing in order to do so.

Please elaborate why you feel that this proposed news item already
"essentially" only explains how to be careful in emerge -uDN @world to
migrate defaults+oldrepo --> defaults+newrepo, given it is full of
information about "choices"?


>> But the support migration to unlock choice is itself something
>> potentially worthy of a news item, solely because it may break systems
>> which do not intend to locally set any USE flags. Thus, the news item
>> should stick to describing how to successfully update.
> 
> Just to be clear: there's no need to set any USE flag to get a
> successful update.


Yes, that was never in doubt. My point has already been that there is no
need to set any USE flag afterwards either, and the news item does not
need to advise people about what their USE flag options are.


-- 
Eli Schwartz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQTnFNnmK0TPZHnXm3qEp9ErcA0vVwUCacCbzgUDAAAAAAAKCRCEp9ErcA0vV87p
AQC1XxV56YwdTZMEnQleYCOsRUo6BfcdYZBphOQ+UVM+igD+NlfMZjSKqCqk+rdctlZpreRNtrXE
QfTE8Ru3hLn1IQg=
=1olj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----