1 |
Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long |
3 |
> as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world |
4 |
> (without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward |
5 |
> compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease of educating |
6 |
> the vast majority of stable users, as the @ is new anyway, so it can have |
7 |
> new behaviour without a problem, but having new behaviour for world does |
8 |
> present a significant re-education/retraining issue. |
9 |
|
10 |
The only drawback I see is that we would then have the following: |
11 |
|
12 |
@system == system |
13 |
...but... |
14 |
@world != world |
15 |
|
16 |
This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live |
17 |
with and document this "quirk". |
18 |
|
19 |
How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies |
20 |
"world" (with no "@" sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is |
21 |
not in world_sets? |
22 |
|
23 |
It would warn that the world set no longer automatically includes system |
24 |
(i.e., @system) and also that it is better, from now on, to explicitly |
25 |
use the "@" sign for all sets like world and system (since these two are |
26 |
special cases grandfathered in). |
27 |
|
28 |
-Joe |