| 1 |
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:56:35 +0900 |
| 2 |
Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thursday 16 February 2006 20:31, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Right now 'emerge action' and 'emerge --action' are both supported. |
| 6 |
> > But as we learned with the rsync case 'emerge action' has potential |
| 7 |
> > namespace conflicts with 'emerge package' I'd propose to deprecate |
| 8 |
> > 'emerge action' before we hit another real conflict. |
| 9 |
> > (The alternative would be to deprecate 'emerge package' in favor of |
| 10 |
> > a to-be-written 'emerge install <package>', but that's even more |
| 11 |
> > problematic) |
| 12 |
> > Technically it's a no-brainer, only potential problem would be user |
| 13 |
> > confusion. |
| 14 |
> > Any objections against this for pre5? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> If by "deprecate" you mean to detect when '--' hasn't been prepended |
| 17 |
> and either go ahead with the action or notify that the package |
| 18 |
> doesn't exist then I have no objections. Might be better to go with |
| 19 |
> the latter so that users adjust quickly. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
You saw the attached one-line patch? |
| 22 |
Atm it just throws a warning when an action without -- is used. |
| 23 |
I'm divided on ignoring the action then, on one hand it would be nice to |
| 24 |
get rid of this, OTOH it would be kinda rude to not have a transition |
| 25 |
period for people. Anyone else having an opinion on this? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Marius |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 33 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives