| 1 |
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:35:07 -0500 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <warnera6@×××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> CC'ing ops@g.o because they like getting mail, and are relevant |
| 5 |
> to the discussion :) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Let me try to reply to both too then :) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Opinions on adding a warning when users have set this in their |
| 10 |
> environment? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
A warning sounds great to me, but it shouldn't be *too* obnoxious since |
| 13 |
there are valid uses of ACCEPT_KEYWORDS (quick testing, esp. with -pv). |
| 14 |
I think the main reason ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is still used is people don't |
| 15 |
know the alternatives and there's quite a lot of places that still |
| 16 |
recommend it (removed a reference from some wiki the other day for |
| 17 |
instance). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
So I'd like a warning, but more of the "hey, you're using |
| 20 |
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS, sure you don't want package.keywords instead (see "man |
| 21 |
portage")" kind than the """ |
| 22 |
*** WARNING *** ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is known to be broken. It is highly |
| 23 |
*** WARNING *** recommended that you use /etc/portage.keywords instead. |
| 24 |
*** WARNING *** |
| 25 |
*** WARNING *** Make sure you have a backup. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Continuing in 10, 9... |
| 28 |
""" |
| 29 |
kind :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Marien. |
Archives