On 24-07-2012 07:20:31 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I don't know about general consensus. In my opinion, it's plain spam to > > existing users. (And that would IMO be the xth news item in a row to be > > spam.) > > Can't say I agree here. Some news items have been more useful than > others, but I doubt the typical Gentoo user (who does not subscribe to > -dev) would think that many of the past messages have been spam.
Ok. This is subjective. > Long-time Gentoo users aren't going to notice in the handbook that the > location of /etc/make.conf has moved - I know that if I'm doing an > install I tend to use the handbook as a checklist but I skim through > it so fast that I doubt I'd notice a big change. They're going to > appreciate a heads-up. The only people who wouldn't consider it news > are those following this list, and judging by the state of this thread > you'll already have read 40 posts on the topic, so the 41st won't be > that big of a deal. Long-time Gentoo users either 1) don't reinstall systems that often (why would they?), or 2) know that things every once in a while change. IMO, with 1) you'd expect that user to read the docs again when doing a new install. With 2) they already figured out when they did a new install that /etc/make.conf was not there, however putting something in a file out there did work as expected as well. From a different angle, perhaps stage3s shouldn't include a default /etc/make.conf at all. Would solve this issue nicely, and doesn't require a news item at all, IMO. At the moment Portage refuses to read /etc/make.conf, a news item and possibly even a block of Portage update until the file has been moved would be in order. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
