On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Graham Murray wrote:
> "Michael P. Soulier" writes:
>
>> Sure enough, X no longer works. I'm following the instructions now, but...
>> Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
>> breaking my system?
>
> I think that the default ac
On 1 Jan 2009, at 03:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
...
[assuming] portage could
parse lspci output - why make it slower and more easily to break if
all
breakage can be avoided by simply reading first - then upgrading?
We have computers to make our lives simpler & easier. If a computer
c
Am Thursday 01 January 2009 17:54:12 schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> > Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
> > in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
>
> That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-i
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> > but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
> > You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
> > everything is fine and dandy.
>
> As long as X doesn't
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:34:36 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>
>> but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
>> You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
>> everything is fine and dandy.
>>
>
> Except you've waste
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything. You
> come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and everything is
> fine and dandy.
As long as X doesn't dynamically load a now binary-incompatible module and
segfault.
On 01/01/09 Neil Bothwick said:
> That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
> from a prompt at the start of the process when using --ask. A world
> update can take many hours and is often run overnight, imagine your
> frustration the next morning when you see it is as
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> the ebuild warned you. Portage and ebuilds are different things. And portage
> has to assume that you know what you are doing.
Sure, the issue is that it warned me too late.
> because it SUCKS when a world update breaks somewhere along 25 of 223. People
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:34:36 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> but as long as X is not restarted, the upgrade doesn't break anything.
> You come back, you read the elogs, you downgrade the drivers and
> everything is fine and dandy.
Except you've wasted time and resources compiling the broken v
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 18:42:23 +0100, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> BECAUSE STOPPING IS EVIL! PORTAGE IS NON INTERACTIVE! People want to
> start an update then go away or sleep. I think Neil already told you
> that.
Yes I did. But I also stated that I believe portage should skip the
package when thi
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
> > The software does not have the slightest vaguest foggiest concept of what
> > the RIGHT and the WRONG drivers are. That's a human being's conclusion.
>
> Apparently it did, hence the warning.
the ebuild w
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
> > > > instead of
> > > > breaking my system?
> > >
> > >"That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to th
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
>
>
>> Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
>> in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
>>
>
> That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
> from
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 11:26:27 -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is
> in fact, exactly what I am looking for.
That would be wrong. Emerge is supposed to run non-interactively, apart
from a prompt at the start of the process when u
Am Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009 00:33:27 schrieb Michael P. Soulier:
> Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
> breaking my system?
What we think here is irrelevant. You should file a bug and see what the devs
think. We can then express what we think by voting f
On 01/01/09 Neil Bothwick said:
> This is different in that the problem is not detected until the emerge
> starts, but portage could skip this package and carry on with the rest,
> issuing an elog message explaining what happened and how to force an
> install if that's what you really want.
Yes,
On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
> nice one :-)
>
> The Unix way is to do what the user told it to do, no more and no less.
>
> If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt or even
Ignore what prompt? There was no prompt, a prompt requiring feedback is in
fact, exactly what I a
On 01/01/09 Alan McKinnon said:
> The software does not have the slightest vaguest foggiest concept of what the
> RIGHT and the WRONG drivers are. That's a human being's conclusion.
Apparently it did, hence the warning.
> It therefore cannot decide.
It did decide. It decided to continue.
> Th
I am total Gentoo newb :D but it seems kind of fundamental to the
concept of this distribution that its users are going to make
themselves aware of the details of system updates. Short of reading
ridiculous amounts of doco...folks should be reading the output of the
emerge commands to learn abou
Volker Armin Hemmann ha scritto:
> On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
>> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
>>> after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm
>>> done.
>> I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad
>> up
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 05:54:33 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> Portage knows that what is proposed is going to break the user's system,
> so it should refuse to do it. It's like "Package A blocks package B",
> which causes the emerge to stop till the user acts more sensibly.
This is different in that t
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 01 January 2009 11:02:23 Dale wrote:
>
>> I just did a reinstall on my rig and it did the exact same thing. I had
>> to mask the one it installed and re-emerge the older one that does
>> work. Isn't there some way for it to pick the right one? After all, it
090101 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
>>> instead of breaking my system?
>> If you tell the system to install a driver, ignore the prompt
>> or even type "y", why are users constant
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:27:48 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
> > > instead of
> > > breaking my system?
> >
> >"That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
> > way of doing things."
> >
> > Not my opinion,
On Thursday 01 January 2009 11:02:23 Dale wrote:
> I just did a reinstall on my rig and it did the exact same thing. I had
> to mask the one it installed and re-emerge the older one that does
> work. Isn't there some way for it to pick the right one? After all, it
> new it was the WRONG one it w
On Thursday 01 January 2009 02:25:10 Stroller wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> > ...
> > Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
> > instead of
> > breaking my system?
>
>"That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
> w
Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> So, like a good gentoo user I'm emerging some updates available for my system.
>
> To my surprise when I happen to look at the screen (as it's taking some time
> to build and I'm obviously not watching the entire time), I see this:
>
>
> * * WARNING *
> *
> *
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> > after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm
> > done.
>
> I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad
> upgrade in the first place be a better
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> after the emerge you read the messages with elogv and downgrade. No harm done.
I'll be sure to try that, thank you. However, would not avoiding a bad upgrade
in the first place be a better-behaved tool? Especially when the package in
question "knew" that i
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> > it was. Also:
> > elog
> > and
> > elogv
> >
> > the tools are there. It is your fault of not using them.
>
> Great, please demonstrate how I was to know about this breakage before it
> happened, an
On 01/01/09 Graham Murray said:
> I think that the default action should be that such 'breakages' should
> be checked during the dependency building phase, a message displayed and
> the emerge stop[0]. Then you could either mask the offending package or
> issue a special flag[1] to emerge to ackno
On 01/01/09 Volker Armin Hemmann said:
> it was. Also:
> elog
> and
> elogv
>
> the tools are there. It is your fault of not using them.
Great, please demonstrate how I was to know about this breakage before it
happened, and I'll change how I use the tools.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Michael P. Soulier
On Donnerstag 01 Januar 2009, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
>
> Not impressed. Hopefully this critical message would be summarized at the
> end of the build too. Kind of important. I got lucky and happened to see
> it...
it was. Also:
elog
and
elogv
the tools are there. It is your fault of not using
"Michael P. Soulier" writes:
> Sure enough, X no longer works. I'm following the instructions now, but...
> Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing instead of
> breaking my system?
I think that the default action should be that such 'breakages' should
be checked during th
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:33, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
...
Don't you think the default action here should be to do nothing
instead of
breaking my system?
"That proposal is ludicrous and completely counter to the Unix
way of doing things."
Not my opinion, just quoting.
Stroller.
So, like a good gentoo user I'm emerging some updates available for my system.
To my surprise when I happen to look at the screen (as it's taking some time
to build and I'm obviously not watching the entire time), I see this:
* * WARNING *
*
* You are currently installing a version o
36 matches
Mail list logo
