Am Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:06:53 -0500 schrieb "David C. Rankin" <drankinatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 08/03/2010 04:14 AM, Peter Lewis wrote: > > With a particular package, you've no idea which category this falls > > into. Sure, you could apply the safest approach of always > > restarting everything that's upgraded, but that's not always > > practical. IMO it would be nice to have short indicators when > > something is likely to severely break until restarted. I don't > > think that's overkill, it's just helpful. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Pete. > > Dieter, > > I get what you are saying and I agree. I don't want to see a > multitude of little 1-liners winking by every time I upgrade, but > both Magnus and Pete have a point. The general body of Arch users > probably need to see a bit more info than you do (no doubt I do), but > Pete really puts in into context. You seem to want to use a distribution made safe for less skilled users. Why do you keep wasting our time suggesting to make Arch something it's not meant to be??? If Arch doesn't fit you needs you shouldn't use. If package updates and restarting a daemon is hard to handle for you should really think about this. You seem to hold the record in the last months for silly questions about updating and using our distribution. If you think you need a list of packages to remember where you should interact, go on and create one your own. -Andy
