| 1 |
Am 24.06.2011 02:10, schrieb Neil Bothwick: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite |
| 5 |
>> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, |
| 6 |
>> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me |
| 7 |
>> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation |
| 8 |
>> can you get? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs, |
| 11 |
> but all in one go, not one problem at a time. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The feature is not bad, but how it is implemented is. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
With autounmask you get a notice that you have something to change, then |
| 16 |
look up to the portage presented list and see that the changes are |
| 17 |
already there. Then you are wondering why portage says that you have to |
| 18 |
do something that is already done and assume it is a bug. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Such a reaction started this thread. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Now that I know how to read it and what to expect I can work with it and |
| 23 |
see that it is not so bad after all. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The change was unexpected and contrary to reasonable expectation mainly |
| 26 |
because there was no information before or after this change. It needed |
| 27 |
this thread to clear how it works and how to read ist. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Greetings |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Sebastian |
Archives