| 1 |
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:22:40 -0400 |
| 2 |
"Anthony G. Basile" <blueness@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>> What do you think? If its a good idea, is implementing it in an |
| 5 |
> >>> eclass the way to go? |
| 6 |
> >> Rather in PM. Portage 2.2 already does some library magic due to |
| 7 |
> >> preserved-libs, why it can't do something in this area too? |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> > Yeah seems like something a package manager can implement and |
| 10 |
> > wouldn't necessarily need anything from ebuilds. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If the PM is going to suggest restarting services, it /needs/ to |
| 13 |
revdep-rebuild packages first (and probably implement perl-cleaner and |
| 14 |
python-updater and so on) or the restart could well fail. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The reason it works in OpenSUSe is because they distribute binary |
| 17 |
packages. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, I recently had a deb update on an Ubuntu break installing a |
| 20 |
package because the attached service failed to restart when it found an |
| 21 |
incompatible runtime configuration option in /etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Agreed for the above reason. I'm not too familiar with portage |
| 24 |
> internals. If this is an easy addition for you guys, do you mind |
| 25 |
> doing it? Otherwise I'll try to produce a patch. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
app-admin/lib_users has some code you might want to look at. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
jer |
Archives