| 1 |
7.11.2005, 9:41:04, Grobian wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 09:56:35PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
>> | Then what is the point of this GLEP? Instead, just warn people |
| 5 |
>> | through existing intrastructure, which is cheap from an engineering |
| 6 |
>> | perspective because everything is already there in place, and don't |
| 7 |
>> | think of implementing all kinds of extras just to warn a user one |
| 8 |
>> | extra time, since "trying to warn them any further becomes futile" |
| 9 |
>> | anyway. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The current warning levels we have are insufficient. This GLEP proposes |
| 12 |
>> a new system for warnings which will be far harder to accidentally |
| 13 |
>> ignore. There are, however, limits to how far we can reasonably go |
| 14 |
>> before we make the solution worse than the problem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Remember that there are packages in the tree that satisfy the preemptive |
| 17 |
> requirement, since they simply die when trying to upgrade and a certain |
| 18 |
> amount of prerequisites is not met. This prevents the user from losing |
| 19 |
> data files or making them inaccesible, while at the same pointing out |
| 20 |
> what needs to be done and why, using a short message. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Uhm, breaking the emerge chain in *not* an alternative to this GLEP, in no |
| 23 |
way... Leaving the rest of the upcoming rant/flame for ciaranm's pleasure. :=) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Jakub Moc |
| 30 |
mailto:jakub@g.o |
| 31 |
GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E |
| 32 |
Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
... still no signature ;) |
Archives