| 1 |
2010/1/17 Krzysiek Pawlik <nelchael@g.o>: |
| 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 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for |
| 7 |
>> example to update the portage database). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Nope, that's a bad idea unless you plan to implement such feature for portage, |
| 10 |
> paludis and pkgcore (and possibly other package managers). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> So use revdep-rebuild (longer but correct solution) or lafilefixer (quicker but |
| 13 |
> introduces other problems). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
For those who actually worry about the md5sum breakage lafilefixer |
| 16 |
causes, they can run lafilefixer in post_src_install using |
| 17 |
/etc/portage/bashrc. This way the correct md5sums of the la-files are |
| 18 |
recorded into the database. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Or even better write a python implementation of lafilefixer so bug |
| 21 |
#271129 [1] could be fixed and portage takes care of it internally. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/271129 |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Daniel Pielmeier |
Archives