Steve Long wrote:
>> @system == system
>> ...but...
>> @world != world
>>
>> This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live
>> with and document this "quirk".
>>
> I don't see that as major from a user pov; as soon as you see @ you're in
> set territory, which is for finer-grained control. We already expect users
> to have the ability to read docs and the like, and this way we're not
> introducing any surprises; for the standard update procedure we're all used
> to, sets don't come into it.
Ah, OK. I have been considering that "world" is simply a grandfathered name for
"@world" (and same for system). I.e. that "world" is also specifying the world
set, but that only world and system are allowed to have the "@" dropped to avoid
breaking things for users. Isn't that the way the code treats it now?
Or is "world" (no "@") really not a set?
>> How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies
>> "world" (with no "@" sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is
>> not in world_sets?
>>
> It's starting to get tricky.. ;)
It just seems like that's the most common case (expecting "world" to include
"@system" and "@world"), so if it doesn't, warn the user, and in the process
migrate users to using "@" (to avoid the warning).
> .. and we still get the issue that future usage would mean needing:
> emerge @world @system # or should it be the other way round?
True, but as Duncan discovered, if you leave off the -1, @system gets put in
world_sets anyway, and some might want that. Then @world includes both.
> ..when we used to have a simple 'emerge world'[1]. I don't see how that
> helps our users. iow the change feels like a loss, not an improvement
> (which the set code certainly is), when a little tweaking with the option
> parser would mean we had both uses. I see it as polishing the UI, nothing
> more.
I know what you mean. And I'm not sure what makes most sense. It still seems
potentially confusing for "world" and "@world" to mean different things. If the
words were different, it would not seem that way.
> Maybe there's a case for dropping system as a special-case over time, and
> giving a deprecation warning.
Yeah, I'd vote for that.
-Joe
