| 1 |
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto: |
| 2 |
> On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said: |
| 4 |
>>> after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm |
| 5 |
>>> done. |
| 6 |
>> I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad |
| 7 |
>> upgrade in the first place be a better-behaved tool? Especially when the |
| 8 |
>> package in question "knew" that it was likely incompatible? |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I'm not saying that this could not be avoided with more work, I'm saying |
| 11 |
>> that I shouldn't have to if the tools were better behaved. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> Cheers, |
| 14 |
>> Mike |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> how should 'the tool' know what card you are using? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The tool knew -in fact it told him of the breakage , *after* doing it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> and even if portage could |
| 21 |
> parse lspci output - why make it slower and more easily to break if all |
| 22 |
> breakage can be avoided by simply reading first - then upgrading? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If you don't know there's something to read... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> Do you |
| 27 |
> always install the latest drivers without reading up on them first? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Usually, yes. Could be my fault, but am I expected to read technical |
| 30 |
docs everytime I update a package? |
| 31 |
Anyway, the system *knows* that there's a problem, so your point is |
| 32 |
moot. The only thing we're asking is to warn and stop *before* and not |
| 33 |
*after*. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> Nvidia's 'deprecation' strategy is a pain in the ass and they are doing it for |
| 36 |
> a long time now. So this time it bit you. Next time it will be 6XXX card |
| 37 |
> users, then 7XXX card users and so on. That is why you have to go to nvnews |
| 38 |
> first and then upgrade. Not the other way round. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Thanks for advice. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
m. |
Archives