| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:05:45 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" <nadams@××××.org> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 8 |
> | > On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 19:45:08 -0500 "Nathan L. Adams" |
| 9 |
> | > <nadams@××××.org> |
| 10 |
> | > wrote: |
| 11 |
> | > | Just keep in mind that portage is supposed to be non-interactive |
| 12 |
> | > | and most users like it that way. (Although the countdown when |
| 13 |
> | > | cleaning out old packages kinda breaks that idea, but I digress.) |
| 14 |
> | > |
| 15 |
> | > You really should give the GLEP a read. It's quite nice, you know... |
| 16 |
> | > |
| 17 |
> | |
| 18 |
> | Your explanations hint at interacting with portage during an emerge. |
| 19 |
> | Specifically you floated the idea of having emerge print a red flashy |
| 20 |
> | message before doing the emerge. *That* is what I was commenting on. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Ever noticed any of the other red flashies that emerge gives? For |
| 23 |
> example, if you try emerge -C glibc? Doesn't break the non-interactive |
| 24 |
> requirement, it's just yet another way of shoving something in the |
| 25 |
> user's face if they somehow ignore all the normal warnings. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yes, I've noticed them. My point is that you need to be careful that the |
| 29 |
red-flashy doesn't the primary way of delivering the message. |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iD8DBQFDarid2QTTR4CNEQARAq+gAKCZ0e1kZHeuYvQcjqxKwTZ+XsbXRACgh2ef |
| 34 |
gSZ1q0Of1t6SA6u5oMQkp5c= |
| 35 |
=oKCA |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives