| 1 |
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Helmut Jarausch |
| 2 |
<jarausch@××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On 11/02/2012 12:57:24 AM, James Cloos wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Many thanks, James. |
| 6 |
> Since app-portage/portage-utils is a portage specific package, it would be |
| 7 |
> nice if it would take |
| 8 |
> all portage actions (like eselect) into account. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> You might want to open an RFE bug report for app-portage/portage-utils |
| 13 |
>> suggesting that qfile gain the ability to do the (the logical equivilent |
| 14 |
>> of) the above itself. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I've tried that, but the reponsible developer doesn't want to understand |
| 18 |
> (even an advanced) user's need. |
| 19 |
> Helmut. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I would not want qfile to report on files (including symlinks) which |
| 23 |
are not recorded in the /var/db/pkg database. That's simply not what |
| 24 |
the tool is designed for. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
eselect is not part of portage, and it can create/change literally any |
| 27 |
file on your system. There is no central place where these changes are |
| 28 |
tracked, so any attempt to make qfile aware of it would be unreliable. |
Archives