Re: [gentoo-dev] is this newsitem worthy?

[William Hubbs]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:36:07PM -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> On 08/21/2016 15:31, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > take a look at the discussion on
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=591414, in particular the last
> > few comments.
> >
> > My question is, is the emerge action newsitem worthy as Mark suggests?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > William
>
> I think it is.  I was scratching my head over some of these warnings, wondering
> why no one has fixed some of them yet.  For the less-used packages, such as
> sys-apps/timer_entropyd, without a revbump, I'd not have thought that simply
> re-merging the package on all of my systems would update the init script and
> make the warning go away.
 
 The news item is being written and will be posted here soon.

> IMHO, such a change *should* have been a revbump, and, if that was the only
> change to that package, that revbump should have gone straight to stable since
> it doesn't really represent a significant change (and issues regarding such a
> change should have already been worked out).  OTOH, if there were other things
> that could be fixed in a package, then pack this change into the rest and
> follow the normal stabilization process.
 
Here is the thread where this was announced; The revbump and
stabilization was left to the individual package maintainers and no one
said otherwise should be done including myself.

 https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b2b147b1860a9eb938ff5e4eec3dd014

> As for the "--quiet --quiet" bit...that's a bit obtuse.  The message being
> output is only using an "ewarn", so it's not a critical error and should have
> been squelched with the first --quiet.  I'd either update the message to an
> "eerror" to get attention or add a note about the double-quiets somewhere (or
> add a new switch, --stfu, to do the job </smirk>).

heh, the discussion on the bug has shown that there is an issue here
which I am going to look into.

William