From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-59655-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 DD2311381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:06:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5707CE0A9B;
	Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:06:54 +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 6CDB8E09B2
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:06:53 +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 D058D33DD81
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:06:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1365934008.6940.12.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 12:06:48 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20130414040854.7f672faa@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
References: <20130412234105.407563f4@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <20130414085539.7501576a@TOMWIJ-GENTOO>
	 <20130414022418.45e1ed85@caribou.gateway.2wire.net>
	 <201304141023.05880.dilfridge@gentoo.org>
	 <20130414040854.7f672faa@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: 9694a092-604e-411b-ba06-cd5cfbfd4c58
X-Archives-Hash: 3f3e280119a78ef17cfa97ba0ebf6268

El dom, 14-04-2013 a las 04:08 -0600, Ryan Hill escribió:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 10:23:00 +0200
> "Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Am Sonntag, 14. April 2013, 10:24:18 schrieb Ryan Hill:
> > >
> > > 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?
> > 
> > No. They are just not reading it when the only new and relevant message is 
> > drowned in repetitive spam.
> 
> So the solution is to not display them at all?  New messages won't be printed
> unless the maintainer uses REPLACING_VERSIONS, in which case you get exactly
> the same behaviour as now, ie. "drowned in repetitive spam".  All this does is
> reduce the chance of the user ever seeing important information.  If they
> happen to miss it the first time they're SOL.  Are cosmetics really a bigger
> concern than keeping users informed?
> 
> 

The messages are shown the first time by elog *and* saved
in /usr/share/doc/*/README.gentoo, adding the advantage of users having
that docs always present without needing to re-emerge the package or
manually read ebuilds