Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 currently installing a version of nvidia-drivers that is * known not to work with a video card you have installed on your * system. If this is intentional, please ignore this. If it is not * please perform the following steps: * * Add the following mask entry to /etc/portage/package.mask by * echo =x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-177.0.0 /etc/portage/package.mask * * Failure to perform the steps above could result in a non-working * X setup. * * For more information please read: * http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_32667.html * You must be in the video group to use the NVIDIA device * For more info, read the docs at * http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/nvidia-guide.xml#doc_chap3_sect6 * * This ebuild installs a kernel module and X driver. Both must * match explicitly in their version. This means, if you restart * X, you most modprobe -r nvidia before starting it back up * * To use the NVIDIA GLX, run eselect opengl set nvidia * * nVidia has requested that any bug reports submitted have the * output of /usr/bin/nvidia-bug-report.sh included. * * To work with compiz, you must enable the AddARGBGLXVisuals option. * * If you are having resolution problems, try disabling DynamicTwinView. 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? 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... Thanks, Mike 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 installing. Looks to me like it could pick the right one. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 things. Not my opinion, just quoting. 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 type y, why are users constantly surprised when the system does exactly what they told it to do? What's the computer supposed to say? Um, no my china, look here: I don't think that's a smart move. I don't care what you asked, I'm just not going to do it. Eat dust, sucker That's how Windows works. On Unix, if you break it you get to keep both pieces. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 installing. Looks to me like it could pick the right one. 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. It therefore cannot decide. The devs therefore correctly decided to not even try and decide. Unix-like systems demand that the user actually has a clue, is more than a mere automatonic moron, can and does read information and can and does really make decisions. And is prepared to live with the results. Some Unix people try to get all politically correct and hide this fundamental fact, but that is just plain wrong. It will never work any other way than how it is working right now. Users that are not prepared to actually think about what they are doing should switch back to Windows. That system specializes in treating their customers like complete idiots. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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. 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 type y, why are users constantly surprised when the system does exactly what they told it to do? What's the computer supposed to say? Except in this case, portage knew the action was risky but issued the warning after the event you really shouldn't have done that, like a typical smartarse with20:20 hindsight. There are numerous examples of ebuilds that stop if an upgrade is risky, postfix is one such, and provide the user with the an option to carry on if they choose, usually be setting an environment variable. I really don't see the point in an ebuild making this sort of test and then continuing to install anyway. -- Neil Bothwick I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 when the system does exactly what they told it to do? Except in this case, portage knew the action was risky but issued the warning after the event you really shouldn't have done that, like a typical smartarse. There are numerous examples of ebuilds that stop if an upgrade is risky, postfix is one such, and provide the user with the an option to carry on if they choose, usually be setting an environment variable. I really don't see the point in an ebuild making this sort of test and then continuing to install anyway. I agree. I ran into this on my back-up box which has an older card, but as I never do 'emerge world' without '-pv', I saw it in time aborted via '^c'. I've now made a prominent note in my pkg list for that machine not to try to upgrade the Nvidia driver. 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. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 was the WRONG one it was installing. Looks to me like it could pick the right one. 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. It therefore cannot decide. The devs therefore correctly decided to not even try and decide. Unix-like systems demand that the user actually has a clue, is more than a mere automatonic moron, can and does read information and can and does really make decisions. And is prepared to live with the results. Some Unix people try to get all politically correct and hide this fundamental fact, but that is just plain wrong. It will never work any other way than how it is working right now. Users that are not prepared to actually think about what they are doing should switch back to Windows. That system specializes in treating their customers like complete idiots. Not disputing what you say but if it doesn't know what card we are using, why does it warn us that it is not compatible? Exact same thing happened to me a couple weeks ago and it has not happened before that, that I can recall anyway. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 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. -- Neil Bothwick I cna ytpe 300 wrods pre mniuet!!! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 first place be a better-behaved tool? Especially when the package in question knew that it was likely incompatible? I'm not saying that this could not be avoided with more work, I'm saying that I shouldn't have to if the tools were better behaved. Cheers, Mike how should 'the tool' know what card you are using? The tool knew -in fact it told him of the breakage , *after* doing it. and even if 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? If you don't know there's something to read... Do you always install the latest drivers without reading up on them first? Usually, yes. Could be my fault, but am I expected to read technical docs everytime I update a package? Anyway, the system *knows* that there's a problem, so your point is moot. The only thing we're asking is to warn and stop *before* and not *after*. Nvidia's 'deprecation' strategy is a pain in the ass and they are doing it for a long time now. So this time it bit you. Next time it will be 6XXX card users, then 7XXX card users and so on. That is why you have to go to nvnews first and then upgrade. Not the other way round. Thanks for advice. m.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 about edge cases like this one. In the short few days I've been using Gentoo, there have been several occasions where had I not read that output, my system would have been 'broken' on next reboot. At the very least there were additional steps needed for me to install that package I tried to emerge (missing USE flags, requests to rebuild other packages, external data downloads, etc.). Personally, I rather like this approach. The folks maintaining the builds take the time to identify these edge cases, which makes the portage text output quite helpful. -- Matt On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 1:09 PM, b.n. brullonu...@gmail.com wrote: 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 first place be a better-behaved tool? Especially when the package in question knew that it was likely incompatible? I'm not saying that this could not be avoided with more work, I'm saying that I shouldn't have to if the tools were better behaved. Cheers, Mike how should 'the tool' know what card you are using? The tool knew -in fact it told him of the breakage , *after* doing it. and even if 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? If you don't know there's something to read... Do you always install the latest drivers without reading up on them first? Usually, yes. Could be my fault, but am I expected to read technical docs everytime I update a package? Anyway, the system *knows* that there's a problem, so your point is moot. The only thing we're asking is to warn and stop *before* and not *after*. Nvidia's 'deprecation' strategy is a pain in the ass and they are doing it for a long time now. So this time it bit you. Next time it will be 6XXX card users, then 7XXX card users and so on. That is why you have to go to nvnews first and then upgrade. Not the other way round. Thanks for advice. m.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 devs therefore correctly decided to not even try and decide. Unix-like systems demand that the user actually has a clue, is more than a mere automatonic moron, can and does read information and can and does really make decisions. And is prepared to live with the results. Orthogonal to the discussion. You are blaming users for laziness in the system that could have made it easier to notice a potential problem. Some Unix people try to get all politically correct and hide this fundamental fact, but that is just plain wrong. It will never work any other way than how it is working right now. Justification by tradition won't help anyone here. I see nothing in this post but inflammatory, flawed logic. Users that are not prepared to actually think about what they are doing should switch back to Windows. That system specializes in treating their customers like complete idiots. Like this statement. I see many posts like this but few suggestions as to how the problem could have been avoided ahead of time. I saw one suggestion of how to roll the driver back after the fact, which I did, after it was already broken. Does anyone have any rational arguments to support the system not stopping due to the warning, or is this all I can expect? Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpSGtVJl4JDJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 looking for. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpoiu6Zo2NmE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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, that would have been helpful. The message in fact was very helpful in showing me how to fix the problem, and I am thankful that the effort was taken as Gentoo is still a little new to me (I come from Debian/RedHat land mostly). I'm not against the warning, as the subject of this thread states, it just came a little late. :) I like Gentoo, but I find it in the wrong in this particular case. Cheers, Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpmR9mzhVXA3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 for it. Bye... Dirk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 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 asking if you want to proceed on package 3/184. -- Neil Bothwick Pedestrians come in two types: Quick or Dead. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 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 asking if you want to proceed on package 3/184. Only thing worse is a system that completed the emerge but don't work. I have one word: Great! That is a bit sarcastic to. I can think of a couple other words but you may get the idea. The others are. . . dirty. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 of doing things. Not my opinion, just quoting. 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 type y, why are users constantly surprised when the system does exactly what they told it to do? What's the computer supposed to say? Except in this case, portage knew the action was risky but issued the warning after the event you really shouldn't have done that, like a typical smartarse with20:20 hindsight. There are numerous examples of ebuilds that stop if an upgrade is risky, postfix is one such, and provide the user with the an option to carry on if they choose, usually be setting an environment variable. I really don't see the point in an ebuild making this sort of test and then continuing to install anyway. 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.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 you. Portage and ebuilds are different things. And portage has to assume that you know what you are doing. It therefore cannot decide. It did decide. It decided to continue. because it SUCKS when a world update breaks somewhere along 25 of 223. People don't want portage to stop. The devs therefore correctly decided to not even try and decide. Unix-like systems demand that the user actually has a clue, is more than a mere automatonic moron, can and does read information and can and does really make decisions. And is prepared to live with the results. Orthogonal to the discussion. You are blaming users for laziness in the system that could have made it easier to notice a potential problem. the user is the only one to blame - if you restart X or your system before reading the elogs, it is your own fault if something breaks. A running service, like X, ssh, apache, isn't influenced by any update until you restart it. So a user who didn't read up before updating and then doesn't read after it too deserves what he get. Some Unix people try to get all politically correct and hide this fundamental fact, but that is just plain wrong. It will never work any other way than how it is working right now. Justification by tradition won't help anyone here. I see nothing in this post but inflammatory, flawed logic. no, he is right. Linux is not Windows. There are some people who want to turn linux into windows. These people should buy a mac. Users that are not prepared to actually think about what they are doing should switch back to Windows. That system specializes in treating their customers like complete idiots. Like this statement. I see many posts like this but few suggestions as to how the problem could have been avoided ahead of time. I saw one suggestion of how to roll the driver back after the fact, which I did, after it was already broken. Does anyone have any rational arguments to support the system not stopping due to the warning, or is this all I can expect? 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.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 situation occurs, unless you have explicitly told it to proceed with the potentially broken version. -- Neil Bothwick Why marry a virgin? If she wasn't good enough for the rest of them, then she isn't good enough for you. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 version of the software and then recompiling the version you already had. If the ebuild, in fact it's the nvidia.eclass, can detect that proceeding will cause breakage, why proceed? Then there's the case where an update to another package now prevents the old one from compiling. It shouldn't happen, but it does, so why risk all those disadvantages when portage could use its --keep-going code to restart the emerge with the net package? -- Neil Bothwick God is real, unless specifically declared integer. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 don't want portage to stop. Perhaps then all such checks should be done at the beginning of running portage, instead of at the beginning of the individual builds. Debian does this, running all pre-scripts before actually installing the packages. There are more than two options here. the user is the only one to blame - if you restart X or your system before reading the elogs, it is your own fault if something breaks. A running service, like X, ssh, apache, isn't influenced by any update until you restart it. No, untrue. Running services with loadable modules such as apache can easily be disasterously influenced by underlying changes while they are running. I've seen it many times. So a user who didn't read up before updating and then doesn't read after it too deserves what he get. I was upgrading on the order of 20 packages. Thank goodness I didn't deploy Gentoo in an enterprise environment and only broke the single machine. Your philosophy seems to put an undue amount of work on the administrator. Exactly how many websites should I be checking before I follow the simplistic instructions in the Gentoo handbook that tell me to just emerge --update world? I followed the instructions found here http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2chap=1#doc_chap3 no, he is right. Linux is not Windows. There are some people who want to turn linux into windows. These people should buy a mac. No argument here, although I don't see how we've gotten on this side-topic of how Linux is not Windows. I never once asked for that. 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. Which is why it's important to stop up front, not an hour into the process. Or don't stop at all, but skip the one ebuild. Cheers, Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgp1PRvmMOze2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 asking if you want to proceed on package 3/184. Agreed. Skipping seems the easiest-to-implement option, as likely running all sanity checks beforehand would likely take an architectural change. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpHxDYbFR3T2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 does load modules on demand from time to time, does it not? Then of course there's the issue of power failures, my UPS only lasts for about five minutes and we've had some wicked winter storms lately. On another topic I'm assuming that this technique is inappropriate for managing large numbers of workstations or servers. I assume you'd patch one sacrificial box, and then use a completely different mechanism to push those changes out to your managed machines. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpkWrOcePJBP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 resources compiling the broken version of the software and then recompiling the version you already had. If the ebuild, in fact it's the nvidia.eclass, can detect that proceeding will cause breakage, why proceed? Then there's the case where an update to another package now prevents the old one from compiling. It shouldn't happen, but it does, so why risk all those disadvantages when portage could use its --keep-going code to restart the emerge with the net package? I wonder if the same would be said about something like baselayout or some other system package that just can't be . . . screwed up? If a new udev would break my system and it knew it, then updated it anyway, it wouldn't be a inconvenience at that point. I would be pissed because I only have one system and no way to search for a fix either. I would be putting a new meaning to shooting in the dark. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 dynamically load a now binary-incompatible module and segfault. X does load modules on demand from time to time, does it not? nope. X loads everything on startup.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 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 asking if you want to proceed on package 3/184. Well, these days ebuilds can be marked as interactive, showing a yellow I in emerge -pv. That's what for example doom3-demo does with it's license, so if people run an emerge -uDN world over night, ignoring those flags, it's their fault. I too would like to see as few interactive ebuilds as possible. - Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 can automatically detect breakage avoid it, then it saves the user reading documentation for many packages. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 system? 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 acknowledge the 'problem' but install/upgrade the package anyway. [0] As with package blockers. [1] A new flag, something like '--unsafe' [1] there isn't as new as you might think, though it's a variable rather than a flag... I quote from the Busybox ebuild: set env VERY_BRAVE_OR_VERY_DUMB=yes if this is realy what you want. silly options will destroy your system For any that haven't played with emerging Busybox to ROOT=/ and USE=make-symlinks, the text above is an excerpt from the message when the emerge chastises you ad calls 'die'. Incidentally... I'm going to go bug that typo (realy)... yay for Firefox's built in spell checking. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 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 acknowledge the 'problem' but install/upgrade the package anyway. [0] As with package blockers. [1] A new flag, something like '--unsafe'
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 them.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpxV9iiQAqAl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 acknowledge the 'problem' but install/upgrade the package anyway. [0] As with package blockers. [1] A new flag, something like '--unsafe' I completely agree. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpeepqUcOO6E.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 how I use the tools. Cheers, Mike after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm done.
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 was likely incompatible? I'm not saying that this could not be avoided with more work, I'm saying that I shouldn't have to if the tools were better behaved. Cheers, Mike -- Michael P. Soulier msoul...@digitaltorque.ca Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein pgpvQiiWRZS2y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] nvidia warning comes a tad late
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 better-behaved tool? Especially when the package in question knew that it was likely incompatible? I'm not saying that this could not be avoided with more work, I'm saying that I shouldn't have to if the tools were better behaved. Cheers, Mike how should 'the tool' know what card you are using? and even if 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? Do you always install the latest drivers without reading up on them first? Nvidia's 'deprecation' strategy is a pain in the ass and they are doing it for a long time now. So this time it bit you. Next time it will be 6XXX card users, then 7XXX card users and so on. That is why you have to go to nvnews first and then upgrade. Not the other way round.
