On 10/06/2014 20:29, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 19:06:19 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> What's not to like? Do you like a long emerge list aborting as soon as >>> you turn your back because of a missing patch file in a minor package? >> >> Yes, exactly. For two reasons: >> >> 1. In the vast majority of cases, there's something to deal with and I >> like to deal with it now. Missing patch files are comparatively rare for >> me, whereas X doesn't build with the latest version of Y is somewhat >> common. I'd rather mask the new version of Y and let portage re-figure >> things out. > > Yes, but the packages that continue have nothing to do with the error, so > it makes sense to get them out the way so only the problem packages are > left. Also, when there's yet-another-bloody-chromium-update and I set it > running and go to do something useful, I don't want to come back two > hours later to find it didn't even try to build chromium because > sys-unrelated/foo failed. > > Also, occasionally, I find that running the update again compiles the > program correctly this time. This happens quite often with KDE updates > when kdm and one or two others fail on the first pass, but work next > time. > >> 2. My over-the-top OCDness won't let me leave the bloody thing alone and >> let it finish, if I know there's an error in there I feel compelled to >> hit Ctrl-C and find out what the error is :-) > > I understand that only too well, but I find it less destructive to look > at the log for the failed build while the others continue :P > >
I understand you completely, and I also understand Alan completely :-) I'm an old fart, set in my ways, I found something long ago that works for me with unsufficient pain to provoke a change. So I ain't changin' :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
