1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 +0000 (UTC) |
4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
5 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as |
6 |
>> excerpted: |
7 |
>> > Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly |
8 |
>> > screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell |
9 |
>> > you...). |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Well, not "anyone". I never had any problems with it. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later |
14 |
> when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la |
15 |
> files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. |
16 |
> |
17 |
>> (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like |
18 |
>> greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might |
19 |
>> intend!) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Well, if you prefer, "anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either |
22 |
> looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later |
23 |
> on". |
24 |
> |
25 |
|
26 |
That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use portage". |
27 |
Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* |
28 |
match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will |
29 |
*not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager |
30 |
modifying the files behind the package manager's back. |
31 |
-- |
32 |
Jonathan Callen |