1 |
On Tuesday 03 Jan 2012 02:00:48 Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
2 |
> On 01/02/2012 07:22 PM, Dale wrote: |
3 |
> > I always knew I was "odd". Looks like I have some company tho. Welcome |
4 |
> > to the "odd user" group Michael. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> It ain't us =) |
7 |
|
8 |
Nope. It ain't just you. It's me too. ;-) |
9 |
|
10 |
I'd rather the old default behaviour was retained/returned to. I have to |
11 |
admit even after all this time I will occasionally forget and run emerge -u |
12 |
some_package, only to notice that it was added into world at the end of the |
13 |
emerge. Even worse, it wasn't updated (because no update was available) but |
14 |
was just added in world all the same. |
15 |
|
16 |
Of course when I notice this I go and remove it from world manually and make a |
17 |
mental note not to do this again. When I miss it, the package ends up in |
18 |
world. :-( |
19 |
|
20 |
However, I do wonder how confused could a new user end up being with this |
21 |
(superficially) inconsistent behaviour. The -u option works fine on world (it |
22 |
just updates packages already in world, but not on individual packages (it |
23 |
updates *and* adds said packages in world). |
24 |
|
25 |
I understand the logic, but for the reasons explained by Michael and Dale I |
26 |
also prefer the old behaviour to be the default: nothing gets added in world |
27 |
as a result of updating alone. An enotice message that informs the user that |
28 |
just updating the particular package(s) does not mean they are added to the |
29 |
world file and won't be automatically updated when running 'emerge -u world' in |
30 |
the future, would educate users, along with options for adding the said |
31 |
packages in world. |
32 |
|
33 |
Of course, the opposite will work too; flashing a fat enotice to educate us |
34 |
old dogs to remember to run -1 instead of -u. |
35 |
-- |
36 |
Regards, |
37 |
Mick |