| 1 |
maillog: 17/07/2005-23:57:05(-0700): Donnie Berkholz types |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 22:07 -0700, Anthony Gorecki wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday, July 17, 2005 9:26 pm, Casey Allen Shobe wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I'm also a bit confused about the portdir_overlay thing - If there |
| 5 |
> > > exists a -r15, do I then add a -r16 to make emerge realize an |
| 6 |
> > > update is available. What happens then when an -r16 hits the |
| 7 |
> > > regular portage tree? |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > Nothing at all. If there's a conflict between the standard tree and your |
| 10 |
> > overlay, the ebuild in the overlay takes priority. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In other words, something very important: You miss all the potentially |
| 13 |
> critical changes contained in the new "official" revision. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Since that's a common issue, maybe portage could warn the user sort of |
| 16 |
like this: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
$ emerge -pv app-foo/bar |
| 19 |
... |
| 20 |
Warning: app-foo/bar-0.1-r2: [1] overrides a newer ebuild in [0] |
| 21 |
[ebuild R] app-foo/bar-0.1-r2 0kB [1] |
| 22 |
Portage overlays: |
| 23 |
[0] /usr/portage |
| 24 |
[1] /usr/portage-local |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I know [0] exists in my head only, but that's for illustration only. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
"newer" in this case refers to the mtime of the two ebuilds. The user |
| 29 |
checks, merges changes (or simply touches the ebuild in their overlay) |
| 30 |
and the warning goes away. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
However, there is also the possibility to lose all the critical changes |
| 33 |
from your overlay if you accidentally install the "official" newer |
| 34 |
revision (I bet there are plenty of people who may forget a package that |
| 35 |
they have in their overlays). That's already covered by |
| 36 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67072 though. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
*) Georgi Georgiev *) Department chairmen never die, they just *) |
| 41 |
(* chutz@×××.net (* lose their faculties. (* |
| 42 |
*) +81(90)2877-8845 *) *) |
Archives