On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 08:26:10 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote: > >> > Manual means manually added to the list by python-updater, rather than >> > using any sort of detection. >> > >> >> OK, I won't bother with the many definitions of the word manual or how >> that effects the conversation from my end 'cause that don't matter >> much to Linux man-page writers. ;-) > > I agree that describing an automated default as manual is somewhat less > than intuitive... >
Yep. Generously I'd say they meant something like 'from a manual of known apps', etc., but clearly other words like 'list' might have been more intuitive, at least to me. >> However I'm still failing to see >> the interest in this as it only removes 1 or 4 packages (boost) that >> I've rebuilt multiple time. 75% of the failures still fail using >> -dmanual. >> >> c2stable ~ # python-updater -p -dmanual >> * Starting Python Updater... >> * Main active version of Python: 2.7 >> * Active version of Python 2: 2.7 >> * Active version of Python 3: 3.1 >> * Adding to list: app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs:0 >> * Adding to list: app-emulation/virtualbox:0 >> * Adding to list: app-office/openoffice-bin:0 >> * Adding to list: app-office/openoffice-bin:0 > > I've also been hit by the first, as I think I mentioned. As for the other > two, re-emerging a binary package won't help at all, because it's a binary > package, so you unpack it rather than rebuild it. That's more a problem > with using binary packages on a source distro than a fault of > python-updater itself. Understood and agreed. For OO I couldn't quite get up the interest to start building from scratch though. Something like 450MB of things to download and then what, do it again in a week or two? Not worth it for my needs. Thanks for all the insights. I do appreciate your inputs. Cheers, Mark
