On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's >>> execution upon specific output. > > (Doesn't scale to more than one user since nobody else is going to be > using that script.) > >>> Then you could have loud warning signals, send emails that get you >>> fired and an automatic backup to the NSA, or NAS, as you like. >>> >> >> >> To correct myself: It's silly to assume the package that breaks your >> setup is already on that watchlist. There's only one thing you can do: >> make sure you have the time to clean up after your update. >> > > Uh, there's a difference between > > a) We *know* that upgrade X will break your system and/or > require manual intervention. > > and > > b) We have no specific knowledge that upgrade X will > break your system and/or require manual intervention. > So, my script doesn't scale and your notion of 'we' does? How comes? cheers! mar77i
