Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:02:00
Message-Id: 20070103085628.1cadd4f1@hactar.digimed.co.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? by Daniel Barkalow
1 On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 00:45:00 -0500 (EST), Daniel Barkalow wrote:
2
3 > Perhaps it just needs to be more popular, or maybe it needs to
4 > understand slots better (in order to be popular). I know that all of
5 > the kernels I install tell me that support for devfs was removed long
6 > before the oldest kernel available in portage as of when I installed
7 > the machine.
8
9 File a bug, the ebuild shouldn't be reporting this if it is unnecessary or
10 confusing.
11
12 > It also doesn't look like it's something where it would be able to
13 > choose to upgrade postfix 2.2.10 to 2.2.10-r1 instead of to 2.3.5
14 > because 2.3.5 would require help and 2.2.10-r1 is automatic.
15
16 This is Gentoo, you are supposed to make those sort of decisions for
17 yourself. Automatic updates go against the "the admin is in control"
18 ethos.
19
20
21 --
22 Neil Bothwick
23
24 Bang on the LEFT side of your computer to restart Windows

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: anti-portage wreckage? Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@××××××××.org>