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 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-46166-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
id 1G0UTt-0007G2-UV
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:29:42 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6C2RgQ2017929;
Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:27:42 GMT
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.188])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6C2LTBD003196
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:21:29 GMT
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d4so58088nfe
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=beta; d=gmail.com;
h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
b=oAKkDYjwGdmX6fuFJMJBZTjFZDpfn33LeYGDhFg4SFf3ky5ClsGrNAjKL8zjbQXvuPLxDXnuSCISef+FI1XiGWGaiC80KQ8m0Q162dSXdFoGXhiioPqEY+ygFPnhISITbXThCU2Ahw3JT1k3YccfUlTMNva9PKIpiBvNs+Qcqeo=
Received: by 10.78.157.15 with SMTP id f15mr84543hue;
Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.78.20.11 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7573e9640607111921u172ab25dx67cc7ba34ca7118d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:21:29 -0700
From: "Richard Fish" <bigfish@asmallpond.org>
Sender: richard.j.fish@gmail.com
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Things that can be improved
In-Reply-To: <200607112012.04226.gentoo.org@machturtle.com>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44AEB475.8000702@maestroprogramador.com>
<200607112012.04226.gentoo.org@machturtle.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: a9d94d75eb8c005b
X-Archives-Salt: 4008fb35-8d01-4fe8-beaf-35de43614f40
X-Archives-Hash: e6ca16bb9195af5c3bfd2420d09486dd
On 7/11/06, David Corbin <gentoo.org@machturtle.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see an option where certain packages are not upgrade just because
> they're out of date, but require an additional command line argument.
> Additionally, a tool that I could run that tells me "the following packages
> are being 'held back' because a more involved upgrade" - ideally, it would
> also provide information on what the required steps are.
>
> I'm I crazy?
I don't think so. Your comments are very much in line with
mine...trying to make the more involved upgrades less error prone.
The one concern I have with taking this out of the standard update
process is that we really need to keep up with the currently 'stable'
software as a minimum. Updating some things that are "simple", but
letting other packages fall behind, is just asking for breakage at
some point. Some recent postings to -dev regarding current software
not building with old gcc versions really point out this fact...
So I don't think we need yet another tool here. I would prefer to see
our existing tools enhanced with this goal in mind.
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list