From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:59:34 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pan$1b90f$262bb192$1fe29a52$527d744d@cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 53EB98BC.4050404@gentoo.org
Alexander Berntsen posted on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:56:28 +0200 as excerpted:
> One thing that needs discussion is what to do with the current behaviour
> of --autounmask, i.e. printing the suggestions. One thing that was
> really weird in my original patches (the ones in this thread)
> is this:
>
> emerge foo # this will do what --autounmask does today
> emerge foo --autounmask # this will do what --autounmask-write does
> emerge foo -a # this will do what --ask --autounmask-write does
> emerge foo --autounmask=n # this will do what --autounmask=n does
>
> The problem here is that there is no way to do e.g. emerge foo --ask,
> and get suggestions any longer. You can either have it prompt to write
> stuff, or you can have it not do anything -- but you can't explicitly
> have it suggest stuff without prompting to write. This is bad design.
>
> So either I need to implement tri-state (--autounmask can be yes, no,
> suggest), or I need to do something more drastic.
This remains my problem with the patches as they are now.
* I don't want portage writing mask/use changes on its own under any
circumstances, as I use directories and have my own idea of what files I
want stuff in.
* Never-the-less, I find the suggestions very helpful and indeed, often
the easiest way to find out what I need to do.
* I routinely use --ask.
Currently, --ask assumes "yes" very easily, simply hit return, and I like
that behavior for simple merges as it's convenient and easily enough
undone. (With --oneshot by default as well, an errant enter is undone
easily enough with a --depclean.)
The patches as they are now would change that, giving me no way to still
get the suggestions with --ask, without chancing the actual write of
those changes. That's particularly bad as the currently convenient
behavior of letting a simple enter indicate yes makes it all too easy to
actually do those writes I don't want done under any circumstances.
While I'm fine with --ask defaulting to (the current) --autounmask-write
behavior by default, I need a way to get the current --ask --autounmask
(without write) behavior too, even if I need to add --autounmask=suggest
or some such to DEFAULTOPTS, because that's /my/ configuration's default
behavior, and I want it to stay that way. =:^)
So please do implement that tri-state --autounmask=suggest behavior. =:^)
The only other /possible/ objection I see is the potential version-
dependent confusion over --autounmask behavior. An argument could be
made that it might be better to simply kill the --autounmask switch, hard-
wiring that behavior, and keep the current --autounmask-write name,
simply making it the default while still allowing people to explicitly set
--autounmask-write=n.
That way, while the remaining --autounmask-write parameter would arguably
unnecessarily keep it's longer name, there could be no confusion over the
changing --autounmask behavior, since that parameter would simply cease
to exist.
But I don't feel strongly about that. If people think the confusion over
--autounmask changing meaning isn't as big a deal as saving those few
extra characters necessary for the longer -write variant, fine with me.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-13 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-12 9:37 [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-12 9:37 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/4] emerge: Deprecate --autounmask Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-12 9:37 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/4] emerge: Rename --autounmask-write to --autounmask Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-12 9:37 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/4] emerge: Make --autounmask=y if --ask=y Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-12 9:37 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 4/4] emerge: Let --autounmask=n override other options Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-13 16:06 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Autounmask changes Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-13 16:45 ` Brian Dolbec
2014-08-13 16:56 ` Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-13 17:59 ` Duncan [this message]
2014-08-13 18:39 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] " Alexander Berntsen
2014-08-13 19:24 ` Wyatt Epp
2014-08-13 19:39 ` Alexander Berntsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='pan$1b90f$262bb192$1fe29a52$527d744d@cox.net' \
--to=1i5t5.duncan@cox.net \
--cc=gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox