On Tuesday 06 September 2005 17:33, Philip Webb wrote:
> Sorry, but that's neither adequate nor polite as a response
> to the genuine problem which I raised as the original poster.
> The answer to your question should be clear from the rest of my message
> -- the present warning is misleading, as everyone has agreed --
> & your other response needs some explanation on your part.
> Someone else has suggested that Portage can't handle a N/Y of this kind,
> but in that case please offer some confirmation at least.

Okay. Let's take it one step through at a time.

> >> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >>> it's possible that unmerging slotted packages of the one key
> >>> may break your system.

I explain the reasoning behind the current behaviour.

> >> 050905 Jason Stubbs wrote:
> >>> How's about not warning if there's more than one installed cat/pkg 
> >>> (rather than cat/pkg-ver) satisfying the profile atom that is being 
> >>> triggered? 

I suggest how to alter that behaviour to cover the former reasoning and 
address the current issue with it.

> >> -- patch snipped --

I supply a working and tested patch 45 minutes later.

> >> I'ld say that the behaviour should be left alone

You imply that the patch isn't suitable...

> >> pending a larger rewrite of Portage's handling of this kind of thing.

... for no other reason that it should wait for some unknown "larger 
rewrite" of "this kind of thing".

> >> Meanwhile, simply amend the warning to read in red letters eg

Then you suggest that it would be better to frighten the users even more...

> >>   "WARNING : removing this package may break your system !!

... by first summarizing the warning you suggest should follow after the 
user hits yes ...

> >>    Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ??

... then suggesting that the user should check what my patch would have 
checked for them anyway ...

> >>    If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !!

... and then suggesting to the user that they are possibly inept.

> >>    Do you want to proceed (NO/yes) ? "

"NO"? s/possibly/very likely/ in the last sentence then.

> Do you respond so abruptly to your neighbours or colleagues at work ?

Should I have used more words that "Why?" to ask you to explain? That was 
half of my email - and the important half at that - but you never responded 
to it. I believe in expediency and your lack of response to the "why?" 
proves (even if it's only in my mind) that using more words would have been 
a waste of time.

Should I have used more words than "No." to explain why your solution is not 
suitable? I don't think so. It didn't seem thought out at all and I don't 
think it should be my job to help you learn how to think.

If it was a neighbour or colleage that came to me with something like the 
above, I'd just laugh and likely never interact with them again. Perhaps I 
should have done that in this case too.

-- 
Jason Stubbs