| 1 |
On Friday 04 of November 2005 02:50 Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 2 |
> After reading through the heated thread, I have yet to see your valid |
| 3 |
> point of pushing xml for such a simple task. All I have seen is two 3rd |
| 4 |
> grade kids arguing over a swing set. Please give some calm reasons for |
| 5 |
> your opinion instead of voicing things in such a heated manner. Making |
| 6 |
> assumptions about someone else's opinions gets you no where. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Well, my point is that our GLSAs and the associated code already handles stuff |
| 9 |
very similar to the `emerge --news` idea, namely: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
a) displaying info only for users having affected package |
| 12 |
b) support for arch-specific issues |
| 13 |
c) version-specific messages |
| 14 |
d) instructions on how to make a workaround and how to fix the problem |
| 15 |
permanently |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
So the code is here, as well as existing procedures to make new announcements, |
| 18 |
to list them on the website, forums etc. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The only disadvantage I'm aware of is that Portage would have to include XML |
| 21 |
parser, but as Brian said, most of Portage installations already do (sorry, |
| 22 |
I'm not familiar neither with stages nor with Portage, feel free to correct |
| 23 |
me). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
WKR, |
| 26 |
-jkt |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives