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 1QZsZg-0001TL-22 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:40:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 48CAD1C056; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAC5D1C056 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 22:32:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwf26 with SMTP id 26so2087477wwf.10 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=2SkeLUzHs15rUcHCT5cZgSVwDTOR9qP9WZ/2ryf34SA=; b=DTJh+Tkyb5s4gDr+GBpY34MYVtSt6ymn/cTDa7jYerwW5VKzMUKHo1+Obk2TvZdUKQ 3KZkOWQkR1zIvlWgoS/f4Mspu+QsxcN624GP7e97LJh7ql3UV95IICYGi0VeA3mLxLEF BDT+wMpG0bqwBxh+1qDb0wWkOf7DlDWqSutdc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; b=AoGxiSCmCwKuEgxL13IBbag5ntiNw3VyctnLz34p6czMw55bbqEol7reui8talSiZS qeNwTdtg6JEs22IltGF/oJz8UTknIXw6gWBjlOig1PwZTG13rgja8/HiJ6cgx8IJg6D0 MzxOPEd28DFF5KpaYa6oU77g6cpOH/iqXe/2E= Received: by 10.216.237.155 with SMTP id y27mr3608753weq.82.1308868363811; Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-183-215.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.183.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ex2sm1556014wbb.65.2011.06.23.15.32.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:32:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] portage getting mixed up with USE? Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:31:38 +0200 Message-ID: <3223478.mY2kb5XGVq@nazgul> User-Agent: KMail/4.6.0 (Linux/2.6.39-ck; KDE/4.6.4; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20110623230600.0a4b2b7c@digimed.co.uk> References: <2869451.8C6Z2vDv6d@nazgul> <4509993.1vgHhyACcR@nazgul> <20110623230600.0a4b2b7c@digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 48b6a272f1e356113383f0760bf7fdbd On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:06:00 Neil Bothwick did opine thusly: > > > b) it breaks the way portage displays his informations. > > > Without > > > autounmask the display of emerge shows what he is going to > > > do. With autounmask it shows what needs to be done. > > > > > > > > That is probably the most evil of all your reasons. There's an > > old dev joke about The Law Of Unintended Consequences, and it > > applies here - portage is now suddenly doing something new and > > 180 different from what it used to do. The normal response if > > "WTF?" followed by lots of indignation > > Ah, the old "we do it that way because that's the way it's always > been done" argument. Yes, it is different, yes, it may be confusing > when you first encounter the change - but that doesn't make it bad. The thing itself is neither inherently good nor bad. Implementing it in this way is bad. Why? Because the behaviour changed to something that is the exact opposite without any warning. Portage always used to tell what it will do. Now, simply by leaving the relevant options at the default, it tells me what it should do. How much more contrary to reasonable expectation can you get? Imagine if tcpwrappers did this. Imagine that hosts.deny was dropped and hosts.allow retained, also imagine that the desired config file name becomes hosts.tcpd but it will use hosts.allow if hosts.tcpd is not found. Now also imagine that the default interpretation of hosts.tcpd is now default deny, explicit allow. All your rules now suddenly invert. Chaos ensues. Sure, it's a contrived example, but it's also a very good example of why one never suddenly and without warning changes default behaviour to the opposite. Few people will argue against the existence of the new unmask options. Folk who want it can use it. Just don't make it the default in such a way that it catches old time users by surprise. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com