| 1 |
On 6/23/2011 6:31 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
>>>> b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. |
| 4 |
>>>> Without |
| 5 |
>>>> autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to |
| 6 |
>>>> do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an |
| 11 |
>>> old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it |
| 12 |
>>> applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and |
| 13 |
>>> 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if |
| 14 |
>>> "WTF?" followed by lots of indignation |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> Ah, the old "we do it that way because that's the way it's always |
| 17 |
>> been done" argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing |
| 18 |
>> when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it |
| 21 |
> in this way is bad. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Why? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite |
| 26 |
> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, |
| 27 |
> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me |
| 28 |
> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation |
| 29 |
> can you get? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I thought the old behavior was "portage would tell me why it's not going |
| 32 |
to do anything", vs. the new behavior of "portage will tell me why it's |
| 33 |
not going to do anything, plus offer to fix it for me." |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Unless I'm missing something about the pre-auto-unmask behavior? (Which |
| 36 |
is entirely likely..) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
--Mike |
Archives