On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:53:56PM +0200, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Thomas Bahn <Thomas-Bahn@gmx.net> wrote:
Am Mittwoch 17 November 2010, 22:20:08 schrieb Evangelos Foutras:
One problem I see with only printing a warning is that the user doesn't have the option not to synchronize at this point and just rerun pacman without the -y switch to install their package.
You are right, but as Dan McGee mentioned before it implies also that some 'special cases' even can lead to partial updates without the warning.
The quote from his email:
This also doesn't help anyone that does an -Syu, cancels, and then later -S <anything>.
But i am not sure if we should catch such actions?
It is true that special cases exist. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to handle them.
I'm starting to think that printing a warning (like you suggested in a previous message) is a better alternative; we won't bother people with a question that doesn't catch all use cases, while still informing most offenders of the possible issues.
If others agree that this is a preferred solution, I'll create a patch tomorrow. :)
Can't we just let Darwin prevail? You don't keep touching the stove after the first time you find out it's hot... or maybe you do... dave