On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 2:41 AM Jyri Hovila [Turvamies.fi] < jyri.hov...@turvamies.fi> wrote:
> > It's not a shortcut, > > This, as many things in this world, completely depend on the point of view. > > One can not simply say "this is this" or "this is not this", without > sufficient background information and overall understanding of the > situation as a whole. > ...which you didn't include. As the line from diagnostic medicine goes "hear hoofbeats? expect horses, not zebras". Failure to mention why your case is unusual suggests that you're a "normal case" -current follower, not someone who has an undisclosed reason for never using snaps. If you're uninterested in what you (now?) know to be the normal answer, you should say that so everyone's time can be saved. It also means that you need crank up your debugging and analysis, so you can work through these things yourself. What failed? Why? What does that imply? What can you change to resolve it? To avoid it? To undo it? If when you build -current, you also build a release, do you still have the files from your last successful build so you can rollback to something you accept? Do you have a test machine you can use your own snap to run through the source update multiple times to experiment with solutions? "What problem are you trying to solve?" ... > > It's fine if you want to waste your own time, but this is the > > one single method of getting out of many holes, like yours. > > It is also perfectly fine if you want to ignore how the real world > functions, and/or give a super irritating / dislikable impression of > yourself and your personality. To give you back just a little, it certainly > seems you know your holes well enough. > That was an unpleasant turn. Philip Guenther
