Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:26:08
Message-Id: 1316525128.1711.4.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem by "Michał Górny"
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 15:16 +0200, Michał Górny escribió:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o> wrote: > > > I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with > > really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in > > their / and, later, try to update? > > Possibly at least few file collisions, if portage would be able to > clean the initial mess up. > > But maybe a solution is to fork a minimalistic installer/updater from > portage which would have really tiny needs, unpack stage3 like you > suggested and then clean up remaining files from replaced packages. >
Maybe we could tell that people to temporally disable protect-owned FEATURE until update ends :-|

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature