| 1 |
On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 13:14 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 12:56 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 11:18 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 28-08-2009 10:08:11 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > > I guess the problem is more why it wants to remove that /usr. Maybe |
| 6 |
> > > > > because of the same problem we once had during install, where paths |
| 7 |
> > > > > "below" the offset prefix shouldn't be taken into account at all, |
| 8 |
> > > > > because you should not do anything there, and may not even be able to do |
| 9 |
> > > > > so. |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > All you need to do is look at the CONTENTS file which as something like |
| 12 |
> > > > this... |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > dir /usr |
| 15 |
> > > > dir /usr/bin |
| 16 |
> > > > obj /usr/bin/comm 4e28628520359733270907c62c738b3f 1250795126 |
| 17 |
> > > > obj /usr/bin/arch 59d8b1d83cfbc020751c8febc4706901 1250795126 |
| 18 |
> > > > obj /usr/bin/factor a68ac36164e0ac5c1245e358e688942e 1250795126 |
| 19 |
> > > > |
| 20 |
> > > > Look at the first line.... Enough said... |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > right, but your prefix is '/', so that makes sense. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Right, normally the "rmdir" would fail because there are files still in |
| 25 |
> > existance in those directories. But with a symlink that doesn't hold |
| 26 |
> > true. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > > the "fix" is most probably that portage shouldn't remove a symlink if it |
| 29 |
> > > expects a dir. Put differently, portage should ensure that it only |
| 30 |
> > > unmerges what it expects. Would that theory work? |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > I'm worried about something like this.... |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > dir /usr/share/mypackage |
| 35 |
> > dir /usr/share/mypackage/test |
| 36 |
> > dir /usr/share/mypackage/symlink-to-test |
| 37 |
> > |
| 38 |
> > Where "symlink-to-test" points to "test" and should be removed. Then |
| 39 |
> > removal of "mypackage" might fail because the symlink would still exist. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Ah, I see the contents file actually says... |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> sym /usr/share/mypackage/symlink-to-test |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> in this case. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> So yes, We shouldn't be removing symlinks when it's "dir". |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
So, that gets me back to my patch. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Would it work as it is ? |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Alan. |
Archives