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 1RhthK-0000T4-DL for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:01:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3FFE21C169; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:01:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail2.viabit.com (mail2.viabit.com [65.246.80.16]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61D8221C04A for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2012 02:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [172.17.29.6] (unknown [65.213.236.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.viabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C0313837D for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:00:16 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=orlitzky.com; s=mail2; t=1325556016; bh=H3Lm5tZLaFHW9lwRTyjHH6j/43RMPSzgNCnOme4ETaw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=FPcsvPwwt4b21oWrJnWX5KeSwahU5+xqf81UUURjbwv98VGmgnksKdDgKkZX/w5Ax BrmIZud/6YvE8YnbK4ewidJm5K6VcXFp+hThGl/MZH9Hpcfl7kyGERfXSl/+phVj8I ZJ1o8AR68cpUjAZltSKcvytjxy4HVVc3hRw1L5xc= Message-ID: <4F02612C.4070005@orlitzky.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:00:12 -0500 From: Michael Orlitzky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111202 Thunderbird/8.0 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --update behavior References: <4F00D521.1030702@orlitzky.com> <4F00DA99.8050502@orlitzky.com> <4F00DEC5.5090500@gmail.com> <4F00E741.6050002@orlitzky.com> <4F01CED2.5090806@libertytrek.org> <4F01D6A2.9000002@orlitzky.com> <4F01DC67.7070305@orlitzky.com> <4F01EBBC.5020107@orlitzky.com> <4F01EF87.9030809@orlitzky.com> <20120102205018.5527e6ea@digimed.co.uk> <4F021CDC.7070607@orlitzky.com> <20120103012528.19782851@rohan.example.com> <4F02429E.3020106@orlitzky.com> <20120103000423.1ae0efad@hactar.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120103000423.1ae0efad@hactar.digimed.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 1fb6a006-c5f6-4f7a-a0da-20679b79dcc9 X-Archives-Hash: 3771320917eeda03b5924edf6763597f On 01/02/2012 07:04 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:49:50 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >>> And now finally we have Zac, a brave man who has taken on the >>> thankless task of sorting the mess out. Most of his deep changes over >>> the past two years or so are to make things consistent within the >>> overall grand plan. >>> >>> Stuff breaks badly when you do that. But it has to be done. Today it's >>> your turn to be on the sharp end. >> >> I'm fine with suffering a little for the greater good, but is the new >> behavior better in any tangible way? > > It is reasonable to assume that the answer to that question is "yes". Any > other answer raises the question "why did Zac spend so much effort > recoding portage just to piss off the odd user?". Hah! Many people here are probably employed in IT, software development, or system administration where the job description can be summed up as "unfixing things that weren't broken." We all implicitly trust the devs with our systems, of course, but maybe it was announced to little protest and that was reason enough?