| 1 |
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 13:44:49 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> That only happens when dependency satisfaction fails by normal means. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
And when that happens, it is better to bail and go "Uh oh, something bad", |
| 7 |
not "oh, right, lets install something that will likely make things |
| 8 |
worse and additional work to fix" |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Its a regular occurrence that we have to tell people about this on #gentoo. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > That default gets people using broken openssl and experimental |
| 14 |
> > packages blindly without them ever having intended on getting into |
| 15 |
> > experimental waters. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> If people can't be bothered to understand the meaning of package.mask |
| 18 |
> and keywords changes, should they really be using Gentoo? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And its not *entirely* true that this is the case. Toralf used to |
| 21 |
complain portage couldn't find a resoultion and would try unmasking |
| 22 |
insane stuff in the process of tinderboxing. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
But lo and behold, by removing the ability to unmask ** and |
| 25 |
package.mask, he reported a significant improvement in the ability to |
| 26 |
test. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
"RTFM?" is a terrible response to "you have bad defaults that make |
| 29 |
things break" because that default is *only* useful to people who would |
| 30 |
consider using things that have *zero* expectation that they would work. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
And that is not any majority demographic of the Gentoo user base. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Its not a useless feature, but its a feature that should only be |
| 35 |
enabled after reading the documentation. |
Archives