-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 21/11/13 12:19, Duncan wrote: > I'm with zmedico in comment #11, and *STRONGLY* oppose this change > as you're proposing. Current autounmask is **NOT** useless. How is it not? Consider comment 6[0] and 10[1].
> FWIW, I have a very specific portage layout and there's no way > "dumb automation" could put what I'd consider the appropriate write > in what I'd consider the appropriate file, nor do I want it to try! > (And even if it could do it perfectly, I want to /know/ what my > config is, and the best way for me to /know/ my config is if the > only way it changes is if I change it myself!) Irrelevant. > OTOH, current default autounmask (without write) behavior, having > portage tell me what (it thinks) I need to unmask and/or what > package.use flags it thinks I need is fine, and often quite helpful > indeed, as long as it's not actually trying to actually WRITE it > anywhere! Irrelevant. > If I read the above correctly, what you're proposing would kill > that behavior entirely if --ask is used, defaulting to writing > (fine if it can be turned off), with no way (at least no way with > --ask instead of --pretend) to tell portage to make the suggestion > it with --autounmask (which is the default now), with absolutely no > chance it's going to attempt to actually rewrite my config on its > own, period. I don't understand this sentence, but I think you *don't* understand what I am saying. Please read comment 10[1], in which I present examples. > OTOH, Zac's suggestion, to simply enable autounmask-write by > default but allow the user to set --autounmask-write=n if they > want, would be just fine, since I could put that in default options > and be done with it. Enabling --autounmask-write by default is a terrible idea. It will result in a lot of spam. Furthermore, consider comment 13[2]. > Tho even that's a sufficiently drastic change from current behavior > that I'd expect a good changelog entry mentioning it, and > preferably a news item, as it has the potential to screw up > people's configs if they aren't paying attention when the default > changes. I agree that a news item could be useful. [0] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c6> [1] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c10> [2] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=481578#c13> - -- Alexander alexan...@plaimi.net http://plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlKN9pgACgkQRtClrXBQc7UvcgD/XRz/iHDsnFa+qt8Q8ms+K//D wD/DIAWlKPStlEKW8noA/0b3aj5+jRGmebq1q4lnkp5PaweShxzvyphP2ZeRe5up =btNb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
