| 1 |
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said: |
| 3 |
> > after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm |
| 4 |
> > done. |
| 5 |
> |
| 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? and even if portage could |
| 17 |
parse lspci output - why make it slower and more easily to break if all |
| 18 |
breakage can be avoided by simply reading first - then upgrading? Do you |
| 19 |
always install the latest drivers without reading up on them first? |
| 20 |
Nvidia's 'deprecation' strategy is a pain in the ass and they are doing it for |
| 21 |
a long time now. So this time it bit you. Next time it will be 6XXX card |
| 22 |
users, then 7XXX card users and so on. That is why you have to go to nvnews |
| 23 |
first and then upgrade. Not the other way round. |
Archives