| 1 |
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/02/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Ah. I must have gotten confused at "So which ones can I remove? |
| 6 |
>> Solutions involving time travel and/or losing customers will be |
| 7 |
>> disqualified." |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Sorry, this thread has gotten a little out of hand =) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think my point was: most solutions available to me now involve potential |
| 13 |
> breakage. Others require me to be more careful 6 years ago. Neither of those |
| 14 |
> is desirable. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The current --update behavior makes this situation easy to get into. If |
| 17 |
> there are no downsides to the old behavior (the point of this thread), then |
| 18 |
> I think the old behavior is preferable. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I'd guess it's more architectural wrt the internals of portage. But |
| 21 |
that's why I figure you'd have to ask the devs... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
:wq |
Archives