Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:59:22
Message-Id: 20110430125842.GD20648@hrair
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item by Rich Freeman
1 On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 08:03:43AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 <snip a lot of crap that is ignoring what I've been asking>
5 Frankly getting fairly annoyed people are immediately taking it to
6 the rhel/ubuntu extremes- that is *not* what I asked and is frankly
7 a strawman argument. Occasional pain on upgrades is a given in
8 gentoo, although anyone claiming we've not kept an eye on those sharp
9 corners is delusional (versioned eapi, etc-update's very existance,
10 portage warning on removal of a pkg in the system set, the list goes
11 on). Hell, even the notification mechanism y'all want to use for
12 informing is an example of trying to soften those corners were
13 possible, rather than precluding their existance.
15 I asked if we had looked at scripting away some of the upgrade pains.
17 It's a pretty simple fucking question requiring either a 5 second
18 "no" or 5 minutes of "yes, heres what we looked at, they were deemed
19 too painful". Answering that also is a helluva lot quicker then
20 people trading barbs over "we need to release it now" or proper SA;
21 while your retort was dead on for what folks should do, it was
22 completely unrelated to answering the question I'm *asking*.
24 If we didn't look into it, that's fine. Means I've got something to
25 poke at over the weekend.
27 If we did, and it was ruled out, awesome, I have other things on my
28 todo list I'll poke at this weekend.
30 ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: openrc portage news item Jeremy Olexa <darkside@g.o>