Re: [gentoo-user] update problems

[lee <lee@yagibdah.de>]

Alec Ten Harmsel <alec@alectenharmsel.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52:41AM +0200, lee wrote:
>>
>> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On 27/09/2015 21:17, lee wrote:
>> >
>> > Fellow, I'm done with you, really.
>> >
>> > You hold onto your issues with portage like they were some treasured
>> > memory of a long-since departed loved one, while all the time apparently
>> > ignoring the correct valid solutions offeered by kind folks on this list.
>> >
>> > Let it go. The devs know about portage output. I don't see you
>> > submitting patches though.
>> 
>> You ran out of arguments and remain at insisting that the problem is
>> known and cannot be fixed because it's too complicated while rejecting
>> suggestions but asking for patches.  So I have no reason to think that
>> patches would be any more welcome than suggestions, and now even if you
>> came up with some pointer what to look at (since emerge, for example, is
>> a wrapper script from which I couldn't see where to start), I wouldn't
>> waste my time with it.  Congratulations.
>> 
>
> Someone (I can't remember who, probably Rich Freeman or some other dev)
> described a problem with the general process of fixing the portage
> output a while ago. I believe the steps went something like this:
>
> 1. Think the portage output sucks
> 2. Learn what the output means
> 3. Lose all motivation to improve the output because it is no longer
>    necessary for you

There seems to be a fourth step when it comes to portage:


4. Discourage everyone who has ideas for improvements and might be
   willing to implement them from actually doing so by telling them that
   they are idiots and should shut up --- and when they indicate that
   they are willing to do just that, complain about that they do just
   that.


> The portage output is not as good as it could be, but everyone with the
> knowledge to fix it doesn't because they neither care (because they
> understand it) *nor* are they being paid.
>
> In my opinion, the portage output is not that bad, in the same way that
> gcc's error messages are not that bad. They can be difficult to get used
> to and some of them are absolutely ridiculous, but after using gcc for a
> while they almost always make sense and are precise.

I find the error messages from gcc are pretty good.


-- 
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us.  Finally, this fear has become reasonable.