Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 13:25:37
Message-Id: 1316611498.3151.0.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem by Duncan <>
El mié, 21-09-2011 a las 04:00 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:00:38 +0200 as excerpted: > > > On 09/20/11 15:09, Pacho Ramos wrote: > > > > What do you guys think? > >> I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with > >> really updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their > >> / and, later, try to update? > > > > Usually things turn ugly - used to be that portage saw that there are > > two glibcs installed and unmerges one (oh crummy, you only had one? > > better reinstall now ...) and other really disturbing side-effects. > > > > Just unpacking a stage3 over a live system is a nice game, but rarely > > has sane results. You'd need to use a VDB-aware tool like qmerge to do > > it cleanly, and then you still don't have a working system (new glibc on > > old kernel, new udev on old kernel, lots of situations where things > > don't work out) > > Thanks, this was far clearer (and more correct) than my attempt. > > The point about old kernel incompatibilities is going to be especially > valid on way outdated installations, and it's something I entirely > missed, because especially with the kernel, I tend toward the leading > edge rather than trailing, and because I bypass gentoo for the kernel > entirely, using my own scripts and upstream git sources, so I don't tend > to think in terms of gentoo/userspace kernel deps at all. >
Then, maybe people wanting to update really old systems should be guided to get a precompiled updated kernel, probably the one used in liveCDs, no?


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature