1 |
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > > Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing |
4 |
> > > instead of |
5 |
> > > breaking my system? |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > "That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix |
8 |
> > way of doing things." |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > Not my opinion, just quoting. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> nice one :-) |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The Unix way is to do what the user told it to do, no more and no less. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt or even |
17 |
> type "y", why are users constantly surprised when the system does |
18 |
> exactly what they told it to do? What's the computer supposed to say? |
19 |
|
20 |
Except in this case, portage knew the action was risky but issued the |
21 |
warning after the event "you really shouldn't have done that", like a |
22 |
typical smartarse with20:20 hindsight. |
23 |
|
24 |
There are numerous examples of ebuilds that stop if an upgrade is risky, |
25 |
postfix is one such, and provide the user with the an option to |
26 |
carry on if they choose, usually be setting an environment variable. |
27 |
|
28 |
I really don't see the point in an ebuild making this sort of test and |
29 |
then continuing to install anyway. |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
-- |
33 |
Neil Bothwick |
34 |
|
35 |
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. |