| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 03:09:47AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular |
| 5 |
> > > files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't |
| 6 |
> > > get an mtime check (even thought the mtime is stored) and are only |
| 7 |
> > > removed if the symlink's target doesn't exist. Hence, it seems to be this |
| 8 |
> > > way by design. Why it's this way? Who knows. It's been that way for |
| 9 |
> > > longer than anyone can remember which is why _it's so important that bugs |
| 10 |
> > > get filed_. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Honestly, I thought it was supposed to be like that, since |
| 13 |
> > collision-protect also doesn't protect against packages overwriting |
| 14 |
> > each other's symlinks (package A and package B can both create |
| 15 |
> > /dummy -> bin without any problems from portage). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> As far as portage source goes, it is meant to be like that. But as far as |
| 18 |
> portage source goes, installed package information isn't necessary for dep |
| 19 |
> calculation (including depclean)... Most code has been reviewed and the major |
| 20 |
> issues are known by at least one person, but there is still some code that |
| 21 |
> hasn't suffered a close examination (yet alone reworking) such as the code |
| 22 |
> that the above bug hits. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> > Do you want a bug report for that? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Yes, please. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Okay, reported as bug #116511. |
Archives