| 1 |
On Monday 20 October 2003 20:12, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/20/03 Joachim Breuer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Now, my question is: Shouldn't fixpackages 'stabilize', i.e. not |
| 4 |
> > perform global updates it has already performed? The way it is now I'd |
| 5 |
> > hate to think what an upgrade will be like a year or two from now... |
| 6 |
> > If this 'stabilizing' cannot be done I'd like to know for what reason, |
| 7 |
> > perhaps I'd want to take a look whether there really isn't an useful |
| 8 |
> > optimization. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Well, there are different opinions on that. I'd like to make the |
| 11 |
> fixpackages script behave the same way as FEATURES="fixpackages", but |
| 12 |
> there is a reason not to do this: the do_upgrade function which actually |
| 13 |
> does all the work for fixpackages (and more) maintains a mtime table |
| 14 |
> when it runs, but it is run by emerge and fixpackages. The problem now |
| 15 |
> is that when do_upgrade runs from emerge without FEATURES="fixpackages" |
| 16 |
> it updates the mtime table, that means the information would be wrong |
| 17 |
> for fixpackages. I guess in the end we will have to add another mtime |
| 18 |
> table for fixpackages to fix this issue. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I hate to sound lame, but I'm not sure I followed that correclty. fixpackages, |
| 21 |
when called using FEATURES, only fixes the packages that the emerge process |
| 22 |
touches? And, when calling fixpackages directly, it processes all packages? |
| 23 |
Is that correct? If not, can you please explaing the difference between the |
| 24 |
two? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Jason |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives