| 1 |
On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 23:32:19 +0100 Grobian <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
| I was referring to the item-name. It is defined to allow "-", whild |
| 3 |
| the fields are also separated with "-". Hence I suggested to allow |
| 4 |
| "_" in the item-name instead of "-" to avoid (possible) problems when |
| 5 |
| parsing the field. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
The fields are separated with .s. Underscores for the name don't make |
| 8 |
parsing any more or less difficult. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
| > | In any case, elaborate on why supporting only OR was chosen and |
| 11 |
| > | why other (probably investigated) options were discarded (and |
| 12 |
| > | hence make my statement above unnecessary). |
| 13 |
| > |
| 14 |
| > The previous draft had an option for and or none-of modes. I took it |
| 15 |
| > out because I don't think it's going to be anywhere near as useful |
| 16 |
| > as one might initially think. |
| 17 |
| |
| 18 |
| I'd appreciate it if that would be documented and grounded. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Actually, I'm starting to think Jason's idea works best. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
| Then what is the point in requiring it is correct English? (Not even |
| 23 |
| considering the big difference between UK/US English) You can and |
| 24 |
| will not enforce it. Everyone writing such news item will do her/his |
| 25 |
| best to make it sound like real English, and perhaps ask for help, |
| 26 |
| but that's it. Hence my suggestion to put the doc writers in the |
| 27 |
| loop somehow. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What makes you suppose that the doc writers are the most qualified |
| 30 |
English language speakers? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
| > | Does portage only 'warn' and still continue, or does it completely |
| 33 |
| > | stop when an unread news item is found for a package that is to be |
| 34 |
| > | upgraded? In the first case, the 'preemptive' requirement is being |
| 35 |
| > | violated, in the latter, the option for a '--force' or something |
| 36 |
| > | must be discussed. (Users with multiple systems might already |
| 37 |
| > | know the message, or users might not be interested in it since |
| 38 |
| > | they don't run the application in production.) |
| 39 |
| > |
| 40 |
| > Portage only *warns* you if you try to unmerge glibc... |
| 41 |
| |
| 42 |
| Which means you won't be able to satisfy your "preemptive" |
| 43 |
| requirement. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Not at all. You can warn users repeatedly, but there comes a point when |
| 46 |
trying to warn them any further becomes futile. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Anti-XML, anti-newbie conspiracy) |
| 51 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 52 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives