| 1 |
On 4/11/2014 4:37 PM, Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:30:43 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> One of the things I do to minimize getting bit by newly released buggy |
| 5 |
>> ebuilds is to wait a few days after a new update is available before |
| 6 |
>> updating... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Isn't that what the stable tree is for? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
As I said, this has saved me some pain even on the stable tree... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> You could write a script that runs emerge -ublah @world, parses the |
| 13 |
> output and then checks the timestamps of the ebuilds. It could then |
| 14 |
> filter packages based on the age of the ebuild, instead of showing a date |
| 15 |
> and letting you do the work. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
This is all fine and good, but not what I asked. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
First, ianap, and don't have the skills to do that, and |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Second, I personally would like to see this important (imho) information |
| 22 |
right there in the emerge --pretend output, and believe that lots of |
| 23 |
people would find it valuable. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Last - I merely asked if this was *feasible*. Ie, it seems to me like |
| 26 |
the relevant information is already available, portage just needs to |
| 27 |
make use of it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'd even be fine with it only being made a part of the verbose output, |
| 30 |
since I always do 'emerge -pvuDN world' anyway... |
Archives