Am 24.06.2011 02:10, schrieb Neil Bothwick: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite >> without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, >> simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me >> what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation >> can you get? > > It's not the exact opposite. Portage is still telling you what it needs, > but all in one go, not one problem at a time.
The feature is not bad, but how it is implemented is. With autounmask you get a notice that you have something to change, then look up to the portage presented list and see that the changes are already there. Then you are wondering why portage says that you have to do something that is already done and assume it is a bug. Such a reaction started this thread. Now that I know how to read it and what to expect I can work with it and see that it is not so bad after all. The change was unexpected and contrary to reasonable expectation mainly because there was no information before or after this change. It needed this thread to clear how it works and how to read ist. Greetings Sebastian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
