1 |
On 29-09-2010 16:20:00 +0200, Peter Waller wrote: |
2 |
> This seems like bad practice not to have a way to do this. I don't think you |
3 |
> can reasonably expect everyone updating their prefix installation to see |
4 |
> posts on this mailing list. You're talking about causing people considerable |
5 |
> pain, possibly effectively irreversible - at least to less experienced |
6 |
> users - unless you publish the details of your hacks required to fix it |
7 |
> after it is broken. |
8 |
|
9 |
I can understand your concerns. Gentoo Prefix is still an experiment, |
10 |
though. While I don't really like to break things, I can't really avoid |
11 |
it always either. |
12 |
|
13 |
> I don't see why such breakage should be necessary in the circumstance that |
14 |
> someone innocently wants to update some packages. Isn't Jeremy's solution |
15 |
> possible, for instance? |
16 |
|
17 |
I had to mask any flawed portage version, which means most people will |
18 |
have to downgrade portage now, which I'm not going to force through |
19 |
openssl or any other random package. It's a very structural problem. |
20 |
|
21 |
The real problem is an abi update of a package, and Portage's |
22 |
preserve-libs not working. In our case even worse, because that means |
23 |
manual means to prevent huge breakage are disabled because Portage is |
24 |
supposed to handle it. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Fabian Groffen |
29 |
Gentoo on a different level |