Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:24:57 +0200
El mié, 21-09-2011 a las 04:00 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> > On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> >  > > What do you guys think?
> >> 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?
> > 
> > Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that there are
> > two glibcs installed and unmerges one (oh crummy, you only had one?
> > better reinstall now ...) and other really disturbing side-effects.
> > 
> > Just unpacking a stage3 over a live system is a nice game, but rarely
> > has sane results. You'd need to use a VDB-aware tool like qmerge to do
> > it cleanly, and then you still don't have a working system (new glibc on
> > old kernel, new udev on old kernel, lots of situations where things
> > don't work out)
> 
> Thanks, this was far clearer (and more correct) than my attempt.
> 
> The point about old kernel incompatibilities is going to be especially 
> valid on way outdated installations, and it's something I entirely 
> missed, because especially with the kernel, I tend toward the leading 
> edge rather than trailing, and because I bypass gentoo for the kernel 
> entirely, using my own scripts and upstream git sources, so I don't tend 
> to think in terms of gentoo/userspace kernel deps at all.
> 

Then, maybe people wanting to update really old systems should be guided
to get a precompiled updated kernel, probably the one used in liveCDs,
no?
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part)
References:
RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
-- Alex Alexander
Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
-- Pacho Ramos
Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
-- Patrick Lauer
Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
-- Duncan
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Next by thread:
Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Previous by date:
Re: git-2: a bunch of patches to review
Next by date:
Re: [RFC] How do we handle stabilisations of not-exactly-maintained packages


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.