| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:06:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > What's not to like? Do you like a long emerge list aborting as soon as |
| 4 |
> > you turn your back because of a missing patch file in a minor package? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yes, exactly. For two reasons: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 1. In the vast majority of cases, there's something to deal with and I |
| 9 |
> like to deal with it now. Missing patch files are comparatively rare for |
| 10 |
> me, whereas X doesn't build with the latest version of Y is somewhat |
| 11 |
> common. I'd rather mask the new version of Y and let portage re-figure |
| 12 |
> things out. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, but the packages that continue have nothing to do with the error, so |
| 15 |
it makes sense to get them out the way so only the problem packages are |
| 16 |
left. Also, when there's yet-another-bloody-chromium-update and I set it |
| 17 |
running and go to do something useful, I don't want to come back two |
| 18 |
hours later to find it didn't even try to build chromium because |
| 19 |
sys-unrelated/foo failed. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Also, occasionally, I find that running the update again compiles the |
| 22 |
program correctly this time. This happens quite often with KDE updates |
| 23 |
when kdm and one or two others fail on the first pass, but work next |
| 24 |
time. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> 2. My over-the-top OCDness won't let me leave the bloody thing alone and |
| 27 |
> let it finish, if I know there's an error in there I feel compelled to |
| 28 |
> hit Ctrl-C and find out what the error is :-) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I understand that only too well, but I find it less destructive to look |
| 31 |
at the log for the failed build while the others continue :P |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Evolution stops when stupidity is no longer fatal! |
Archives