| 1 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:46:54 |
| 2 |
+0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
| 5 |
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen <abcd@g.o> |
| 6 |
>> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use |
| 8 |
>> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if |
| 9 |
>> > they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies |
| 10 |
>> > that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other |
| 11 |
>> > than the package manager modifying the files behind the package |
| 12 |
>> > manager's back. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/ |
| 17 |
portage.git;a=commit;h=a133cb89d5279df7febcd0c8ab3890e2ccfb897a |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
>> Maybe we need to spec VDB after all to avoid that kind of nonsense. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think that unmerge-orphans is a useful feature. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Indeed. FEATURES=unmerge-orphans is optional which is good, but I'm glad |
| 24 |
it's there. I've no idea what the default is as I've had that on ever |
| 25 |
since I saw the changelog entry where it was introduced. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
That'd likely explain why I never had problems with lafilefixer tho. I'd |
| 28 |
guess the unmerge-orphans feature and lafilefixer appeared about the same |
| 29 |
time, at least for ~arch. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Of course, I have FEATURES=fixlafiles set too, so it'd be handled by |
| 32 |
portage automatically now if I didn't have (PKG_)INSTALL_MASK="*.la" |
| 33 |
killing them but for libtool itself. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 37 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 38 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives