On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:17:38 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > > > There is no way that I know of to know before running emerge --sync > > what has been removed from the servers and hence would be removed from > > my machine. Why do Gentoo devs think they should remove anything from > > my machine. It's my machine, not theirs. > > The problem was caused by such a long delay between syncs. A profile is > deprecated a long time before it is removed, during that period you would > have received warnings about this and advised to switch to a currently > supported profile. > > I understand your frustration, but the standard Gentoo portage setup > isn't really suited to an environment where updates are only applied > every couple of years. That's not really a good way to manage an Internet > connected computer anyway, how many security fixes have you missed? > > > -- > Neil Bothwick
I completely understand that part, and actually I have absolutely NO problem with any of that. Actually I support it. I get that the maintainers of portage don't want to support everything, etc., so they remove things form portage. No big deal. And clearly your use of the word 'standard' in front of 'portage setup' is key here. It's just the way it works, and I completely understand that. Where I get frustrated/ticked off/mad is when some independent developer, or group of developers, simply decides to remove code on **MY** machine and force me to make updates without giving me *ANY** opportunity to make a choice. All I did was type emerge --sync and stuff gets deleted and the machine doesn't function until I fix links and rebuild stuff. I'm *forced* to make changes when my purpose in running emerge --sync was nothing more than to *discover* what had been updated. (Obviously a LOT in this case!) I get that the leading-edge developer/gamer mentality cannot get their heads around having machines run for long, long periods of time - years - but these machines do. My parents were running Myth-0.18 or something very old. it worked for them so why change it? These machines only work with an ATI drivers no longer in portage which forces me to use a kernel no longer in portage. I'm fine with the overlay concept and I've saved my kernel and ATI driver. What I argue would be an improvement is that instead of deleting this stuff that instead it automatically move whatever ebuilds it wants to delete to my 'obsolete' portage overlay. Nothing is lost. I go one working and deciding what to change and when to change it. Portage developers can then decide to obsolete anything they want at any time they want and I don't end up with a dead machine. (Dead is strong - used only to make a point - it's 'dead' to me.) Anyway, thanks for letting me vent. I know this isn't going to happen as I've been making this point for years now. I don't understand the resistance but such are the mysteries of the Open Source world! ;-) Cheers, Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
