1 |
Marius Mauch wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Second for the suggestions on how to handle the transition: |
4 |
> - treating 'world' and '@world' differently is a no go from my POV. One |
5 |
> of the main reasons to implement them as sets was to remove special |
6 |
> case code in emerge, so I'm quite opposed to adding new special cases |
7 |
> instead. And I'm quite sure that such a separation would cause |
8 |
> confusion, and some isues regarding (end-user) documentation. |
9 |
|
10 |
We're talking about one special case in the command-line processing, to |
11 |
support the existing usage that all our users are used to. It adds |
12 |
practically nothing in execution time, simply expanding to @system @world, |
13 |
and means that users who don't want to know about sets, or are not thinking |
14 |
in set terms at the time of using emerge, will get the result they expect. |
15 |
Also it makes it easier for users who don't want @system included in |
16 |
@world, eg for easy use of -e @system followed by -e @world. |
17 |
|
18 |
> Though honestly I don't think this issue is as big as some other |
19 |
> people make it. People might miss some updates. The same would happen |
20 |
> if we remove packages from @system, or people switch profiles (so |
21 |
> @system changes). |
22 |
|
23 |
Or you could just do as above and people wouldn't miss any updates, and |
24 |
you'd have less support burden from users who aren't bothered about sets, |
25 |
who can carry on using their systems as they always have. |