http://blogs.gentoo.org/genone?disp=comments en-US http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:38:51 +0000 Sumit [Visitor] c19263@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ Personally I'm glad system and world are separated. It makes gcc upgrades much less redundant. Currently I don't do an `emerge -e system` first, I just go straight into `emerge -e world` which I know may give me consistency issues with the tool chain, but man I hate having to compile all those packages twice. http://blogs.gentoo.org/genone/2007/10/23/portage_2_2_preview#c19263 Thu, 25 Oct 2007 01:17:28 +0000 Marius Mauch [Member] c19245@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ --update already implies --noreplace, so nothing to fear there. http://blogs.gentoo.org/genone/2007/10/23/portage_2_2_preview#c19245 Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:15:28 +0000 Giacomo [Visitor] c19244@http://blogs.gentoo.org/ I'm all for consistency blah blah blah, but 'emerge -u world' (or 'emerge -uD world') is the standard upgrade command and it would suck to have it replaced with a cumbersome 'emerge -uD --noreplace system world'. <br /> If you want consistency it would be far more sensible to rebuild installed packages only if explicitly requested, ie. 'emerge package' to install a package, 'emerge -u package' to upgrade the package if a new version is available, 'emerge -r package' to rebuild a package. In this case 'world' and 'system' would behave like the other packages. If you want consistency it would be far more sensible to rebuild installed packages only if explicitly requested, ie. 'emerge package' to install a package, 'emerge -u package' to upgrade the package if a new version is available, 'emerge -r package' to rebuild a package. In this case 'world' and 'system' would behave like the other packages.]]> http://blogs.gentoo.org/genone/2007/10/23/portage_2_2_preview#c19244