| 1 |
On 1/17/10 7:28 PM, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/17/10 18:20, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> Please: When you run tools which break checksums/dates of the database, |
| 4 |
>>> give the user the possibility to decide whether he really wants this. |
| 5 |
>> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for |
| 6 |
>> example to update the portage database). |
| 7 |
> Nope, that's a bad idea unless you plan to implement such feature for portage, |
| 8 |
> paludis and pkgcore (and possibly other package managers). |
| 9 |
> So use revdep-rebuild (longer but correct solution) or lafilefixer (quicker but |
| 10 |
> introduces other problems). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Hmm... last time I tried revdep-rebuild for that problem it either |
| 13 |
didn't notice something was wrong, or couldn't finish without manual |
| 14 |
assistance. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
How about fixing lafilefixer in an other way: it knows which .la files |
| 17 |
are broken. Instead of changing their contents, it can re-emerge the |
| 18 |
packages they belong to. But then it probably can't be run automatically |
| 19 |
by the ebuild (nested emerges). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
On the other hand, I really wonder how useful the checksums in portage |
| 22 |
db really are. It includes config files which are frequently modified. |
| 23 |
It also doesn't include config files the administrator has to create. So |
| 24 |
for example for verifying system integrity is seems useless to me. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I'd expect only a limited group of users caring about the checksum |
| 27 |
database, and the majority of affected users caring about the update to |
| 28 |
"just work" (which running lafilefixer --just-fixit automatically would |
| 29 |
buy us). |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Paweł Hajdan jr |
Archives