From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59649-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47A61381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:31:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E021BE09CE;
	Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:31:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB594E09BA
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:31:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.33] (117.Red-88-11-52.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [88.11.52.117])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: pacho)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4263B33DC31
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:31:10 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1365931865.6940.5.camel@localhost>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCHES] kernel-2.eclass: Various changes
 requested by users. + [STABLEREQ?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.8.7: Any
 objections against stabilizing?
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 11:31:05 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20130414022418.45e1ed85@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
References: <20130412234105.407563f4@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <20130413230905.76013d0e@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
	 <20130414085539.7501576a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <20130414022418.45e1ed85@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.8.0 
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Archives-Salt: ad46683d-c33f-4093-be8e-90135d164542
X-Archives-Hash: f243ea1d7123900a6f01bbe31ca093fd

El dom, 14-04-2013 a las 02:24 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:55:39 +0200
> Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:09:05 -0600
> > Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > - Make use of readme.gentoo.eclass to make the user aware of the
> > > >   Gentoo Linux Kernel Upgrade Guide only the first time he emerges
> > > >   the package. Fixes bug #457598.
> > >
> > > Call me crazy, but upgrade guides seem like something you might want
> > > to tell the user about during an upgrade.
> > 
> > True, I was wondering if there is a way to show it on their first
> > upgrade instead; most users would indeed not be able or forget to
> > bookmark this during their handbook install.
> > 
> > Therefore, I won't commit this patch.
> > 
> > I wonder if Pacho can adapt the eclass to allow us to do this on the
> > first upgrade, I have explicitly put him in CC so he can consider that.
> > Perhaps he can also explain why he wanted to see this change happen.
> > 
> > I thought the goal of this eclass is to get rid of repeating messages
> > that are not that important from the elog. After you have installed the
> > kernel twice you should be able to do it a third time. People that
> > really still need the link have it either bookmarked or can look into
> > that file, another concern here is that nothing mentions its existence.
> > The user would have to spot it in the list of installed files, strange.
> > 
> > If I misunderstood the goal of this eclass, sorry, it's not documented.
> > I thought people were against these kind of repeating messages in elog.
> > 
> >  - http://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-reference/readme.gentoo.eclass
> > 
> >  - Bug in discussion: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=457598
> 
> Personally I think that the entire idea of only displaying messages on the
> first install is completely asinine.  What exactly is the benefit?  Were users
> complaining that we were being too helpful and they'd like us to hide important
> messages in random places?
> 

When you get tons of messages in summary.log, there are times that is
easier to ignore important messages over all the less important ones