| 1 |
Steve Long wrote: |
| 2 |
>> @system == system |
| 3 |
>> ...but... |
| 4 |
>> @world != world |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live |
| 7 |
>> with and document this "quirk". |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> I don't see that as major from a user pov; as soon as you see @ you're in |
| 10 |
> set territory, which is for finer-grained control. We already expect users |
| 11 |
> to have the ability to read docs and the like, and this way we're not |
| 12 |
> introducing any surprises; for the standard update procedure we're all used |
| 13 |
> to, sets don't come into it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Ah, OK. I have been considering that "world" is simply a grandfathered name for |
| 16 |
"@world" (and same for system). I.e. that "world" is also specifying the world |
| 17 |
set, but that only world and system are allowed to have the "@" dropped to avoid |
| 18 |
breaking things for users. Isn't that the way the code treats it now? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Or is "world" (no "@") really not a set? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
>> How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies |
| 23 |
>> "world" (with no "@" sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is |
| 24 |
>> not in world_sets? |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
> It's starting to get tricky.. ;) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It just seems like that's the most common case (expecting "world" to include |
| 29 |
"@system" and "@world"), so if it doesn't, warn the user, and in the process |
| 30 |
migrate users to using "@" (to avoid the warning). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> .. and we still get the issue that future usage would mean needing: |
| 33 |
> emerge @world @system # or should it be the other way round? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
True, but as Duncan discovered, if you leave off the -1, @system gets put in |
| 36 |
world_sets anyway, and some might want that. Then @world includes both. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> ..when we used to have a simple 'emerge world'[1]. I don't see how that |
| 39 |
> helps our users. iow the change feels like a loss, not an improvement |
| 40 |
> (which the set code certainly is), when a little tweaking with the option |
| 41 |
> parser would mean we had both uses. I see it as polishing the UI, nothing |
| 42 |
> more. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
I know what you mean. And I'm not sure what makes most sense. It still seems |
| 45 |
potentially confusing for "world" and "@world" to mean different things. If the |
| 46 |
words were different, it would not seem that way. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> Maybe there's a case for dropping system as a special-case over time, and |
| 49 |
> giving a deprecation warning. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Yeah, I'd vote for that. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-Joe |
Archives