1 |
090101 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
>>> Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing |
4 |
>>> instead of breaking my system? |
5 |
>> If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt |
6 |
>> or even type "y", why are users constantly surprised |
7 |
>> when the system does exactly what they told it to do? |
8 |
> Except in this case, portage knew the action was risky |
9 |
> but issued the warning after the event |
10 |
> "you really shouldn't have done that", like a typical smartarse. |
11 |
> There are numerous examples of ebuilds that stop if an upgrade is risky, |
12 |
> postfix is one such, and provide the user with the an option to carry on |
13 |
> if they choose, usually be setting an environment variable. |
14 |
> I really don't see the point in an ebuild making this sort of test |
15 |
> and then continuing to install anyway. |
16 |
|
17 |
I agree. I ran into this on my back-up box which has an older card, |
18 |
but as I never do 'emerge world' without '-pv', I saw it in time |
19 |
& aborted via '^c'. I've now made a prominent note in my pkg list |
20 |
for that machine not to try to upgrade the Nvidia driver. |
21 |
|
22 |
Portage knows that what is proposed is going to break the user's system, |
23 |
so it should refuse to do it. It's like "Package A blocks package B", |
24 |
which causes the emerge to stop till the user acts more sensibly. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
========================,,============================================ |
28 |
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb |
29 |
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto |
30 |
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca |