1 |
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> > Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get |
5 |
> > wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on |
6 |
> > it and be compliant. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> But as it's a FEATURE, they can't assume that at all. |
9 |
|
10 |
It's outside the ebuild's area of concern (think seperation of |
11 |
concerns), just the same as INSTALL_MASK. The ebuild, per spec, |
12 |
should be written to assume it's wiped. |
13 |
|
14 |
If the user overrides portages make.globals setting FEATURES=unmerge-orphans |
15 |
it is on the *users* head to maintain the fallout, just the same as if |
16 |
they go and set INSTALL_MASK to do something special. |
17 |
|
18 |
|
19 |
> So either we spec VDB and the unmerge process, which gets horrible for |
20 |
> all kinds of reasons, or ebuilds can't assume that things that have |
21 |
> been modified get wiped. |
22 |
|
23 |
This is getting more into "the sky is falling" territory. If you'd |
24 |
like to tighten the spec, go nuts, but there isn't anything to see |
25 |
here nor is there a real issue. |
26 |
|
27 |
This really is no different than INSTALL_MASK. |
28 |
~brian |