On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:32:00PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 24/07/12 02:52 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: > >> On 07/24/2012 09:33 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: > >>> On 24-07-2012 09:24:03 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > >>>> I guess this is a matter of opinion, but on Gentoo I don't > >>>> think we're really at much risk of driving people away by > >>>> OVER-communicating. Our users are used to things changing and > >>>> a certain level of fix-it-yourself, but if we know something is > >>>> going to cause no end of questions it only makes sense to throw > >>>> the users a bone once in a while. > >> > >>> The way in which news items aggressively request your attention, > >>> makes them something that should only be used if it's obvious > >>> it's important for the user (e.g. postfix thing for postfix > >>> users). This particular change seems more something for > >>> -announce, note in the handbook, and something like the > >>> suggestion of a file giving a nice hint. > >> > >>> My impression is that the message is absolutely useless to the > >>> majority of users on their *already installed* system, so don't > >>> make everyone have to see the news item notice a couple of times > >>> and run `eselect news read` just for this. > >> > >> > >> While I completely understand where Fabian is coming from on all > >> this I respectfully disagree. Long term gentoo users do NOT read > >> the handbook, ever. I still install new systems with odd hacks > >> that I picked up when gentoo was versioned 1.x and it pleases me, I > >> don't care if those steps are not in the docs anymore or > >> discouraged or whatever. I've not even glanced at the handbook for > >> years, yet I've installed gentoo on dozens of systems since the > >> last time I did. > > > > Right, but would a news item now (regarding Catalyst) for something > > you do next month be particularily helpful, compared to a > > 'make.conf.moved' reminder file in /etc ? Or maybe a make.conf > > synlink to profiles/make.conf ? Or something else within the stage > > itself that makes it obvious that it's changed? > > I've often seen cases like these handled by keeping a referenced file > where it's traditionally expected to be found, but leaving a comment > in that file explaining that the content of that file had been moved > to a new location, and the old location is deprecated. > > Would that work for a circumstance like this?
Not really, no- it would mean the PM would have to parse/merge both locations, rather than just looking for the file in one of two spots. ~brian
