On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >> On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: >>> On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: >>>> I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't >>>> think we're really at much risk of driving people away by >>>> OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and >>>> a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is >>>> going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw >>>> the users a bone once in a while. >> >>> The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, >>> makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious >>> it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix >>> users). This particular change seems more something for >>> -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the >>> suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. >> >>> My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the >>> majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't >>> make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times >>> and run `eselect news read` just for this. >> >> >> While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all >> this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read >> the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks >> that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I >> don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or >> discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for >> years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the >> last time I did. > > Right, but would a news item now (regarding Catalyst) for something > you do next month be particularily helpful, compared to a > 'make.conf.moved' reminder file in /etc ? Or maybe a make.conf > synlink to profiles/make.conf ? Or something else within the stage > itself that makes it obvious that it's changed?
I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced file where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a comment in that file explaining that the content of that file had been moved to a new location, and the old location is deprecated. Would that work for a circumstance like this? -- :wq
