1 |
Jeffrey Forman wrote: |
2 |
> Just this morning (afternoon/evening) on #-dev I got to talking to some |
3 |
> people about the usefulness of "emerge -U." I was wondering if someone |
4 |
> had any clue as to why its being removed? I frequently mix packages in |
5 |
> ~x86 to test, or just to use newer revisions which are more stable and |
6 |
> with -U going away, I wont be able to update my machine without |
7 |
> downgrading a <insert explitive> load of packages. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Yes I know about editing package.keywords, but how much of a PITA is |
10 |
> that to have to add an entry for every package you emerge that is masked |
11 |
> for one reason or another. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Any thoughts, comments, or ideas of how you want to burn me at the |
14 |
> stake? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> -Jeffrey |
17 |
|
18 |
What's wrong with "emerge -U"? I'll tell you what's wrong with emerge |
19 |
-U. Its behaviour is completely broken. What happens, for example, when |
20 |
rsync-2.6.1 hits portage, is marked stable, then it's realised that it's |
21 |
broken, but "emerge -U" won't downgrade it as the ebuild is masked |
22 |
pending further development rather than removed? I'll tell you what. You |
23 |
get a ****load of whinging users on the forums and on b.g.o saying "my |
24 |
emerge sync doesn't work, wtf?!?!?!!!!11111oneoneone". There have also |
25 |
been issues in the past couple of days with the new glibc snapshots and |
26 |
the lack of "return" (it was broken). And with gcc-3.4.2 (broken). |
27 |
And... well, you get the idea. So, if you're willing to deal with all |
28 |
those "bugs" and forum posts on your own, or with your fellow intrepid |
29 |
"emerge -U" users, I'm sure neither I nor any of the other -U detractors |
30 |
will mind it staying. |
31 |
|
32 |
The pertinent question here, of course, is: are you willing to do that? |
33 |
I think I know the answer to that already. I'll give you a hint as to |
34 |
the workload involved there: you'll be getting more bug report e-mails |
35 |
and forum PMs than you can conceivably read. |
36 |
|
37 |
So yeah, I'll burn you at the stake ;-p Be aware that this is the |
38 |
position held by someone who's been a dev for not that long but who's |
39 |
been one of the mainstays of the Portage & Programming forum for a good |
40 |
two years. It's users that "-U" hurts, not devs. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |