| 1 |
On Friday 21 September 2007, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> posted |
| 3 |
> 200709201234.42152.vapier@g.o, excerpted below, on Thu, 20 Sep |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 2007 12:34:41 -0400: |
| 6 |
> > we know that someone taking a stage3 has never configured anything |
| 7 |
> > before and so we can safely put defaults into /root/. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Just to point out... I've seen people mention overlaying a stage-3 on an |
| 10 |
> existing installation for recovery reasons, generally broken gcc or (on |
| 11 |
> amd64) switching back to multilib from 64-bit only profiles, so it |
| 12 |
> /cannot/ be rightly assumed that there's not an existing configuration |
| 13 |
> in /root/. (Whether that's the right way to accomplish such recovery |
| 14 |
> isn't the point; the point is, it's done, by people desperate to get a |
| 15 |
> working system once again who know no other way to do it.) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
there's a ton of other files that'd get blown away (like everything |
| 18 |
in /etc) ... anyone who blindly unpacks a stage3 onto their system gets what |
| 19 |
they deserve in my eyes |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> Chris's idea of testing both USE=build *AND* that there's no existing |
| 22 |
> file there that's going to get blown away, sounds reasonable, regardless |
| 23 |
> of the debate over where the code is eventually placed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
except that doesnt address the "issue" you raised above at all ... the files |
| 26 |
are going into /root/ ... how they get there is the subject of the debate |
| 27 |
-mike |
Archives