| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's an interesting idea. I don't personally care either way, as long |
| 3 |
> as @world continues to /not/ include system/@system, but having world |
| 4 |
> (without the @) continue to include system /would/ be useful for backward |
| 5 |
> compatibility. I think it'd be much better in terms of ease of educating |
| 6 |
> the vast majority of stable users, as the @ is new anyway, so it can have |
| 7 |
> new behaviour without a problem, but having new behaviour for world does |
| 8 |
> present a significant re-education/retraining issue. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The only drawback I see is that we would then have the following: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
@system == system |
| 13 |
...but... |
| 14 |
@world != world |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live |
| 17 |
with and document this "quirk". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies |
| 20 |
"world" (with no "@" sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is |
| 21 |
not in world_sets? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It would warn that the world set no longer automatically includes system |
| 24 |
(i.e., @system) and also that it is better, from now on, to explicitly |
| 25 |
use the "@" sign for all sets like world and system (since these two are |
| 26 |
special cases grandfathered in). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-Joe |
Archives