Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: 2.1 release candidate soon?

[Philipp Riegger]

On Apr 15, 2006, at 8:40 AM, Duncan wrote:


Wouldn't the "help them out" default be consistent with the
"non-interactive" goal for portage?  Quit if there's no sane way to go
forward without potentially breaking a system, but otherwise, use sane
fallbacks where they are possible.


I don't think this is about interactive or non-interactive, it's more  
about strict and non-strict. I think it would be nice to have the  
"you want it but did not emerge it so i don't use it" with FEATUERS="- 
strict" and the "sorry, not possible, i'll quit" with FEATURES="strict".


But i really think this is not about helping but about confusion. If  
i post my emerge --info you don't know if i really use confcache even  
if i have FEATURES="confcache", because emerge --info does not say if  
i have emerged confcache and, if i have emerged it, which version it  
is. I think this should also be listed in emerge --info.


Philipp
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-portage-dev] Re: 2.1 release candidate soon?

[Duncan]

Brian Harring posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted
below,  on Fri, 14 Apr 2006 19:35:12 -0700:

> On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 11:01:56AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
>> On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote:
>> > cache backend selection (failed import == defaults to sys default)
>> 
>> This is incorrect. It displays an error message and quits.
> Still leaves the other features then (and raises the question that 
> it's not internally totally standard)...
> 
> Either way, standard for it is preferable (again, prefer failures 
> myself, but I'm not a normal user)...

Wouldn't the "help them out" default be consistent with the
"non-interactive" goal for portage?  Quit if there's no sane way to go
forward without potentially breaking a system, but otherwise, use sane
fallbacks where they are possible.

That would seem to me to be the rationale behind the current standard
behavior.  Personally, I prefer a bit more interactivity in cases like
that as well, but I definitely see the argument for continuing if it's
possible to do in a sane manner.

(It should be obvious, but for completeness, "interactivity" in this case
refers to the global scale of quitting and waiting for the user to fix
something, not interactivity within the app.)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list