7.11.2005, 9:41:04, Grobian wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 09:56:35PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> | Then what is the point of this GLEP? Instead, just warn people >> | through existing intrastructure, which is cheap from an engineering >> | perspective because everything is already there in place, and don't >> | think of implementing all kinds of extras just to warn a user one >> | extra time, since "trying to warn them any further becomes futile" >> | anyway. >> >> The current warning levels we have are insufficient. This GLEP proposes >> a new system for warnings which will be far harder to accidentally >> ignore. There are, however, limits to how far we can reasonably go >> before we make the solution worse than the problem.
> Remember that there are packages in the tree that satisfy the preemptive > requirement, since they simply die when trying to upgrade and a certain > amount of prerequisites is not met. This prevents the user from losing > data files or making them inaccesible, while at the same pointing out > what needs to be done and why, using a short message. Uhm, breaking the emerge chain in *not* an alternative to this GLEP, in no way... Leaving the rest of the upcoming rant/flame for ciaranm's pleasure. :=) -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
pgpgVqKI75PvO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
