| 1 |
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 |
| 3 |
> Jonathan Callen <abcd@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use |
| 5 |
> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if |
| 6 |
> > they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies |
| 7 |
> > that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other |
| 8 |
> > than the package manager modifying the files behind the package |
| 9 |
> > manager's back. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? That's a massive change to how |
| 12 |
> VDB is supposed to work. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's been in place a long while; pkgcore has done it from day one |
| 15 |
also. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
That's not a "massive change" to vdb behaviour either; file collisions |
| 18 |
aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is basically |
| 19 |
guranteed back to a single package. Throw in CONFIG_PROTECT for |
| 20 |
adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more preferable norm than |
| 21 |
"lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the fs". |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Moving on... |
| 24 |
~brian |
Archives