From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECcUe-00051v-HX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:24:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j86CK5Ki007682; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:20:05 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j86CIPK1004324 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 12:18:25 GMT Received: from zh034160.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([222.3.34.160] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECcSN-0005Tz-PM for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:21:44 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id CBFCD102DC1; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:21:43 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2005.1 profile gives devfs as virtual Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:21:41 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 References: <20050904141154.GA7622@sympatico.ca> <200509060839.34718.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20050906083356.GA7710@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <20050906083356.GA7710@sympatico.ca> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1444268.9PEi72d1DO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509062121.43640.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: b2440c94-f386-43a6-a59d-d11efd4bc74e X-Archives-Hash: 2412690cbdd9acb6d6c7b781165f0bd0 --nextPart1444268.9PEi72d1DO Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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=20 > >>> (rather than cat/pkg-ver) satisfying the profile atom that is being=20 > >>> triggered?=20 I suggest how to alter that behaviour to cover the former reasoning and=20 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. =2E.. for no other reason that it should wait for some unknown "larger=20 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 !! =2E.. by first summarizing the warning you suggest should follow after the= =20 user hits yes ... > >> Have you checked that you have a proper alternative installed ?? =2E.. then suggesting that the user should check what my patch would have=20 checked for them anyway ... > >> If you are not certain what you are doing, please STOP NOW !! =2E.. 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=20 half of my email - and the important half at that - but you never responded= =20 to it. I believe in expediency and your lack of response to the "why?"=20 proves (even if it's only in my mind) that using more words would have been= =20 a waste of time. Should I have used more words than "No." to explain why your solution is no= t=20 suitable? I don't think so. It didn't seem thought out at all and I don't=20 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=20 above, I'd just laugh and likely never interact with them again. Perhaps I= =20 should have done that in this case too. =2D-=20 Jason Stubbs --nextPart1444268.9PEi72d1DO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHYnXxvWNPsk/ZP4RAs34AJ0d2weG34frKlma60JllKqhCRS3KACggx5U 6BrAxZxnZai+spK3qwIvWN0= =vokb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1444268.9PEi72d1DO-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list