In <20090102224554.57ea4...@krikkit>,
Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:09:23 -0600, »Q« wrote:
>
> > > That's the point of this thread, the ebuild does perform a test
> > > before installation, but goes ahead straight after the warning.
> >
> > AFAIAC, the post-install log is exactly where the message belongs --
> > that's where I'd look if I'd broken my system.
>
> Would it be better if your system wasn't broken?
Yes, but I continue not to believe that it should be portage's job to
prevent me from installing things that break my system.
> > The fact that I don't
> > think portage should prevent people from installing stuff doesn't
> > mean I think there shouldn't be any information about what they've
> > just installed.
>
> There is another option,and it's already used in other ebuilds. Warn
> and abort emerging that package unless the user has specified that it
> should be installed.
Is it only aborted if the command was --update world, or would it also
be aborted if the problem package was part of some other set? (I hope
the question makes sense -- I haven't followed all the newish stuff
about sets of packages.)
> > But you snipped without comment what I think was a better idea, just
> > making the 177.x series no longer be an upgrade to the 173.x series.
>
> Making different packages is one idea, but will still cause problems
> in the future. The latest package,whatever you name it, would be the
> correct one for7/8/9xxx cards,but at some time it would drop support
> for 7xxx cards.
Don't nVidia give it a new major version number when they drop support,
so that the latest new package at that time would get a new name? If
they *do* drop support even within a major version, my idea wouldn't
stand a chance of working well.
> Maybe a better option would be a make.conf variable, like
> NVIDIA_VIDEO_CARD, that ebuilds would respect in deciding which
> versionto use.
I like that idea better than mine.
--
»Q«
Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.
