From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RXhSA-0008MT-Li for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:56:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40E7721C107; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:55:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F14FA21C0E6 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:55:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.31] (e178073118.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.73.118]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 065EC1B4021 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EDD4BE0.5090902@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:55:28 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111031 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2011-12-13 References: <20111203103024.GN37825@gentoo.org> <201112050148.01078.vapier@gentoo.org> <4EDD4206.30707@gentoo.org> <201112051746.11995.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201112051746.11995.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6c72fc4e-9b35-41d2-b6cf-fd241848be3a X-Archives-Hash: 8f8c26067d5718e4c6fce9e9c32cb766 Mike Frysinger schrieb: >> A moderately knowledgeable user would notice that something is wrong >> from watching the build output for a couple of seconds. Portage howeve= r >> proceeds happily because make returns exit status 0. >=20 > portage would always proceed. the only thing that would stop it is the= user=20 > hitting CTRL+C. and that requires the user actually be watching the bu= ild=20 > output. perhaps they would be for a single package, but for general up= grades,=20 > i doubt you can rely on that. what would be more likely is they try to= run=20 > `cdrecord`, find it missing, find the build failed, and then file a bug= . that=20 > workflow really isn't affected by the defaults here. > -mike In versions prior to cdrecord-3.00 it was actually the case that nothing at all was installed. That would cause patrick to notice and scroll back up in his terminal buffer now to see wtf went wrong. Since 3.00 it installs a cdrecord binary that runs but doesn't actually talk to hardware. Fun. Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguyen