| 1 |
Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2009-01-02, ?Q? <boxcars@×××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> In <20090102224554.57ea4a64@krikkit>, |
| 5 |
>> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:09:23 -0600, ?Q? wrote: |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>> That's the point of this thread, the ebuild does perform a test |
| 12 |
>>>>> before installation, but goes ahead straight after the warning. |
| 13 |
>>>>> |
| 14 |
>>>> AFAIAC, the post-install log is exactly where the message belongs -- |
| 15 |
>>>> that's where I'd look if I'd broken my system. |
| 16 |
>>>> |
| 17 |
>>> Would it be better if your system wasn't broken? |
| 18 |
>>> |
| 19 |
>> Yes, but I continue not to believe that it should be portage's job to |
| 20 |
>> prevent me from installing things that break my system. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> You must be pretty unhappy with Gentoo, because portage seems |
| 24 |
> to go to a great deal of effort to avoid breaking things (what |
| 25 |
> with all that dependancy stuff it does). Several times a month |
| 26 |
> it refuses to update because of blockages alone. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I bet with all the good work the devs do, this could be dealt with |
| 31 |
pretty easily. After all, they made portage so they can move |
| 32 |
mountains. LOL |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I do think that emerging a package that will knowingly break something |
| 35 |
is a bad idea. I still say that if this was baselayout or some critical |
| 36 |
package needed to boot, this would have to be dealt with quickly. I |
| 37 |
just don't think the devs would intentionally release a bad critical |
| 38 |
package that is known to break something. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Dale |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
:-) :-) |
Archives