Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2009-01-02, ?Q? <boxc...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> 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. >> > > You must be pretty unhappy with Gentoo, because portage seems > to go to a great deal of effort to avoid breaking things (what > with all that dependancy stuff it does). Several times a month > it refuses to update because of blockages alone. > >
I bet with all the good work the devs do, this could be dealt with pretty easily. After all, they made portage so they can move mountains. LOL I do think that emerging a package that will knowingly break something is a bad idea. I still say that if this was baselayout or some critical package needed to boot, this would have to be dealt with quickly. I just don't think the devs would intentionally release a bad critical package that is known to break something. Dale :-) :-)
