Steve Long wrote: >> @system == system >> ...but... >> @world != world >> >> This, I would think, could cause confusion too - and we'd have to live >> with and document this "quirk". >> > I don't see that as major from a user pov; as soon as you see @ you're in > set territory, which is for finer-grained control. We already expect users > to have the ability to read docs and the like, and this way we're not > introducing any surprises; for the standard update procedure we're all used > to, sets don't come into it.
Ah, OK. I have been considering that "world" is simply a grandfathered name for "@world" (and same for system). I.e. that "world" is also specifying the world set, but that only world and system are allowed to have the "@" dropped to avoid breaking things for users. Isn't that the way the code treats it now? Or is "world" (no "@") really not a set? >> How about issuing a warning when portage starts if the user specifies >> "world" (with no "@" sign) as the only specified target *and* @system is >> not in world_sets? >> > It's starting to get tricky.. ;) It just seems like that's the most common case (expecting "world" to include "@system" and "@world"), so if it doesn't, warn the user, and in the process migrate users to using "@" (to avoid the warning). > .. and we still get the issue that future usage would mean needing: > emerge @world @system # or should it be the other way round? True, but as Duncan discovered, if you leave off the -1, @system gets put in world_sets anyway, and some might want that. Then @world includes both. > ..when we used to have a simple 'emerge world'[1]. I don't see how that > helps our users. iow the change feels like a loss, not an improvement > (which the set code certainly is), when a little tweaking with the option > parser would mean we had both uses. I see it as polishing the UI, nothing > more. I know what you mean. And I'm not sure what makes most sense. It still seems potentially confusing for "world" and "@world" to mean different things. If the words were different, it would not seem that way. > Maybe there's a case for dropping system as a special-case over time, and > giving a deprecation warning. Yeah, I'd vote for that. -Joe