| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 8:25 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno gio, 30/09/2010 alle 16.10 +0100, Neil Bothwick ha scritto: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> > 2.2 series also got the same feature, but I don't remember since |
| 5 |
>> which |
| 6 |
>> > rc… the latest masked version is definitely fine though. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Does that mean I shouldn't have to run lafilefixer as it run |
| 9 |
>> automatically on new installs? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You should still run it once, to make sure that the system is clean, but |
| 12 |
> you can forget about it afterwards, and even unmerge it from the system. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The alternative, of course, is to emerge -e world — but I wouldn't |
| 15 |
> suggest that just to spend some time ;) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In either case, whether you add the function or leave it to Portage to |
| 18 |
> deal with, it should become transparent after the first time and nothing |
| 19 |
> else should be necessary for the continuous stability of the system. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thanks for all the info Diego. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I found this morning on one system that uses ~amd64 portage that |
| 25 |
lafilefixer did fix a couple of things so it seems that maybe I needed |
| 26 |
it once at least. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
QUESTIONS: If I add the function to /etc/portage/bashrc then does it |
| 29 |
get updated and removed as I install new versions of portage? Will it |
| 30 |
being there cause any problems with later versions of portage that |
| 31 |
don't require it? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Cheers, |
| 34 |
Mark |
Archives