Michael P. Soulier wrote:
So, like a good gentoo user I'm emerging some updates available for my system.
To my surprise when I happen to look at the screen (as it's taking some time
to build and I'm obviously not watching the entire time), I see this:
* * WARNING *
*
* You are
On Thursday 01 January 2009 02:25:10 Stroller wrote:
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
...
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of
breaking my system?
That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
way of doing
On Thursday 01 January 2009 11:02:23 Dale wrote:
I just did a reinstall on my rig and it did the exact same thing. I had
to mask the one it installed and re-emerge the older one that does
work. Isn't there some way for it to pick the right one? After all, it
new it was the WRONG one it was
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of
breaking my system?
That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
way of doing things.
Not my opinion, just quoting.
090101 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of breaking my system?
If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt
or even type y, why are users constantly surprised
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Thursday 01 January 2009 11:02:23 Dale wrote:
I just did a reinstall on my rig and it did the exact same thing. I had
to mask the one it installed and re-emerge the older one that does
work. Isn't there some way for it to pick the right one? After all, it
new it
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 05:54:33 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
Portage knows that what is proposed is going to break the user's system,
so it should refuse to do it. It's like Package A blocks package B,
which causes the emerge to stop till the user acts more sensibly.
This is different in that the
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto:
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm
done.
I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad
upgrade in the
I am total Gentoo newb :D but it seems kind of fundamental to the
concept of this distribution that its users are going to make
themselves aware of the details of system updates. Short of reading
ridiculous amounts of doco...folks should be reading the output of the
emerge commands to learn
On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
The software does not have the slightest vaguest foggiest concept of what the
RIGHT and the WRONG drivers are. That's a human being's conclusion.
Apparently it did, hence the warning.
It therefore cannot decide.
It did decide. It decided to continue.
The
On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
nice one :-)
The Unix way is to do what the user told it to do, no more and no less.
If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt or even
Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is in
fact, exactly what I am
On 01/01/09 Neil Bothwick said:
This is different in that the problem is not detected until the emerge
starts, but portage could skip this package and carry on with the rest,
issuing an elog message explaining what happened and how to force an
install if that's what you really want.
Yes,
Am Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009 00:33:27 schrieb Michael P. Soulier:
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
breaking my system?
What we think here is irrelevant. You should file a bug and see what the devs
think. We can then express what we think by voting
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
from a prompt at the start of the process when
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
from a prompt
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of
breaking my system?
That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
way
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
The software does not have the slightest vaguest foggiest concept of what
the RIGHT and the WRONG drivers are. That's a human being's conclusion.
Apparently it did, hence the warning.
the ebuild warned
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:42:23 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
BECAUSE STOPPING IS EVIL! PORTAGE IS NON INTERACTIVE! People want to
start an update then go away or sleep. I think Neil already told you
that.
Yes I did. But I also stated that I believe portage should skip the
package when this
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:34:36 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
everything is fine and dandy.
Except you've wasted time and resources compiling the broken
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
the ebuild warned you. Portage and ebuilds are different things. And portage
has to assume that you know what you are doing.
Sure, the issue is that it warned me too late.
because it SUCKS when a world update breaks somewhere along 25 of 223. People
On 01/01/09 Neil Bothwick said:
That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
from a prompt at the start of the process when using --ask. A world
update can take many hours and is often run overnight, imagine your
frustration the next morning when you see it is
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything. You
come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and everything is
fine and dandy.
As long as X doesn't dynamically load a now binary-incompatible module and
segfault. X
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:34:36 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
everything is fine and dandy.
Except you've wasted time and
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
everything is fine and dandy.
As long as X doesn't
Am Thursday 01 January 2009 17:54:12 schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run
On 1 Jan 2009, at 03:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
...
[assuming] portage could
parse lspci output - why make it slower and more easily to break if
all
breakage can be avoided by simply reading first - then upgrading?
We have computers to make our lives simpler easier. If a computer
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Graham Murray gra...@gmurray.org.uk wrote:
Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca writes:
Sure enough, X no longer works. I'm following the instructions now, but...
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
breaking my
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
...
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of
breaking my system?
That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
way of doing things.
Not my opinion, just quoting.
Stroller.
Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca writes:
Sure enough, X no longer works. I'm following the instructions now, but...
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
breaking my system?
I think that the default action should be that such 'breakages' should
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
Not impressed. Hopefully this critical message would be summarized at the
end of the build too. Kind of important. I got lucky and happened to see
it...
it was. Also:
elog
and
elogv
the tools are there. It is your fault of not using
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
it was. Also:
elog
and
elogv
the tools are there. It is your fault of not using them.
Great, please demonstrate how I was to know about this breakage before it
happened, and I'll change how I use the tools.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier
On 01/01/09 Graham Murray said:
I think that the default action should be that such 'breakages' should
be checked during the dependency building phase, a message displayed and
the emerge stop[0]. Then you could either mask the offending package or
issue a special flag[1] to emerge to
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
it was. Also:
elog
and
elogv
the tools are there. It is your fault of not using them.
Great, please demonstrate how I was to know about this breakage before it
happened, and I'll change
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm done.
I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad upgrade
in the first place be a better-behaved tool? Especially when the package in
question knew that it
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm
done.
I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad
upgrade in the first place be a
35 matches
Mail list logo
