| 1 |
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:39:12 -0800 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Maybe it would be enough to add a suggestion about --exclude in the |
| 5 |
>> --newuse section of the emerge man page? I don't think this is confusing |
| 6 |
>> enough to qualify for an interactive suggestion. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> However, it could be argued that the various boilerplate "handholding" |
| 9 |
> we're already doing has set the precedent. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I think the manpage is the right place to fix it. Users would find |
| 12 |
out about -N from the manpage or from following -dev. Fixing it in |
| 13 |
that place seems appropriate. Right now I think experienced users are |
| 14 |
more likely to be using it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I'd still like to see our handbook include a recommended workflow for |
| 17 |
keeping gentoo up-to-date. Perhaps that should include a few options |
| 18 |
with the pros/cons of each. I'd think that emerge -auDNv world would |
| 19 |
be one of those options. Perhaps another might be including build |
| 20 |
deps. One advantage of having people running a uniform update command |
| 21 |
that tends to keep everything up to date (even if not strictly |
| 22 |
necessary), is that it would cut down on the diversity of our install |
| 23 |
base. Right now a stable user could be running various versions of |
| 24 |
various libraries based on when they first merged them and whether |
| 25 |
they use -D, and so on. Keeping everybody moving along to newer |
| 26 |
versions (and more freshly compiled ones) could help to cut down on |
| 27 |
the bugs. Bugs filed with older versions still in portage would still |
| 28 |
be legitimate, but unless somebody really needs the older version |
| 29 |
there is no sense making more work for ourselves. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Perhaps this is worth its own thread, as this one is already drifting |
| 32 |
way off topic. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Rich |
Archives