On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 09:49:32PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> I would say: don't ever use make update. > > Why does something exist that isn't to be used `ever'? > You seeme to have conflated "I would say" and "everyone woudl say".
It's worthwhile to explain why even you'd say and my question is merely a hint to provoke an insightful answer. > I think the notion that replace is risky and update is not is confused. Depends on how you define the risk. replace can lead to packages that are alive (installed) but inconsistent with each other [would exist but won't possibly run] update can lead to packages getting wiped out *if* there are build errors. To me there is no value in having a package installed but not functioning - giving me a just a false feel of safety of its existence. Also, if I am doing a compilation on non-prod build server wipe out is no risk IMO. I'd use replace when I know exactly what I am doing and not as a default.
