| 1 |
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:17:38 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > There is no way that I know of to know before running emerge --sync |
| 5 |
> > what has been removed from the servers and hence would be removed from |
| 6 |
> > my machine. Why do Gentoo devs think they should remove anything from |
| 7 |
> > my machine. It's my machine, not theirs. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The problem was caused by such a long delay between syncs. A profile is |
| 10 |
> deprecated a long time before it is removed, during that period you would |
| 11 |
> have received warnings about this and advised to switch to a currently |
| 12 |
> supported profile. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I understand your frustration, but the standard Gentoo portage setup |
| 15 |
> isn't really suited to an environment where updates are only applied |
| 16 |
> every couple of years. That's not really a good way to manage an Internet |
| 17 |
> connected computer anyway, how many security fixes have you missed? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> -- |
| 21 |
> Neil Bothwick |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I completely understand that part, and actually I have absolutely NO |
| 24 |
problem with any of that. Actually I support it. I get that the |
| 25 |
maintainers of portage don't want to support everything, etc., so they |
| 26 |
remove things form portage. No big deal. And clearly your use of the |
| 27 |
word 'standard' in front of 'portage setup' is key here. It's just the |
| 28 |
way it works, and I completely understand that. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Where I get frustrated/ticked off/mad is when some independent |
| 31 |
developer, or group of developers, simply decides to remove code on |
| 32 |
**MY** machine and force me to make updates without giving me *ANY** |
| 33 |
opportunity to make a choice. All I did was type emerge --sync and |
| 34 |
stuff gets deleted and the machine doesn't function until I fix links |
| 35 |
and rebuild stuff. I'm *forced* to make changes when my purpose in |
| 36 |
running emerge --sync was nothing more than to *discover* what had |
| 37 |
been updated. (Obviously a LOT in this case!) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
I get that the leading-edge developer/gamer mentality cannot get their |
| 40 |
heads around having machines run for long, long periods of time - |
| 41 |
years - but these machines do. My parents were running Myth-0.18 or |
| 42 |
something very old. it worked for them so why change it? These |
| 43 |
machines only work with an ATI drivers no longer in portage which |
| 44 |
forces me to use a kernel no longer in portage. I'm fine with the |
| 45 |
overlay concept and I've saved my kernel and ATI driver. What I argue |
| 46 |
would be an improvement is that instead of deleting this stuff that |
| 47 |
instead it automatically move whatever ebuilds it wants to delete to |
| 48 |
my 'obsolete' portage overlay. Nothing is lost. I go one working and |
| 49 |
deciding what to change and when to change it. Portage developers can |
| 50 |
then decide to obsolete anything they want at any time they want and I |
| 51 |
don't end up with a dead machine. (Dead is strong - used only to make |
| 52 |
a point - it's 'dead' to me.) |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Anyway, thanks for letting me vent. I know this isn't going to happen |
| 55 |
as I've been making this point for years now. I don't understand the |
| 56 |
resistance but such are the mysteries of the Open Source world! ;-) |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Cheers, |
| 59 |
Mark |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives