From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A530713838B for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:56:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A773721C042; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from acheron.yagibdah.de (acheron.yagibdah.de [185.55.75.245]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3A0AE086E for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 18:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from br-dmz-ip.yagibdah.de ([192.168.1.1] helo=heimdali.yagibdah.de) by acheron.yagibdah.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh04c-0000CT-Ln for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:56:22 +0200 Received: from lee by heimdali.yagibdah.de with local (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1Zh04c-0001nG-K3 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:56:22 +0200 From: lee To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] update problems In-Reply-To: <20150928234642.GA2237@apio.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> (Alec Ten Harmsel's message of "Mon, 28 Sep 2015 19:46:42 -0400") Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:56:18 +0200 Organization: my virtual residence Message-ID: <874mid12ct.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> References: <87eghucic9.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <55FDBE16.1070404@gmail.com> <87pp15ecli.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <56068293.6090201@gmail.com> <87vbav3c4n.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <56085FB7.1020703@gmail.com> <874mie88cm.fsf@heimdali.yagibdah.de> <20150928234642.GA2237@apio.adsroot.itcs.umich.edu> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org 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-Type: text/plain X-Archives-Salt: 03f174e3-db22-4c1c-aa26-e92d03de3817 X-Archives-Hash: 5cd71956652e3e99bbe2c00afb6c6c23 Alec Ten Harmsel writes: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 12:52:41AM +0200, lee wrote: >> >> Alan McKinnon 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.