On 01/29/2015 02:24 PM, Martti Kühne wrote: > 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? > I think we may have a language barrier -- I have no idea what you're getting at. I said "doesn't scale up to more than one *user*". "We" = package/pacman owners/developers -- this *does* scale to all the users of Arch Linux. Was this not clear? I'm not saying the developers/packagers have infinite reasources, I was pointing out that it might make sense and be worth the effort to implement something (process/pacman support/whatever) which would scale to all the users of Arch Linux and could hopefully be specified in-package once and for all for known cases where upgrades WILL break things.
