| 1 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 10/20/03 Joachim Breuer wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Now, my question is: Shouldn't fixpackages 'stabilize', i.e. not |
| 6 |
>> perform global updates it has already performed? The way it is now I'd |
| 7 |
>> hate to think what an upgrade will be like a year or two from now... |
| 8 |
>> If this 'stabilizing' cannot be done I'd like to know for what reason, |
| 9 |
>> perhaps I'd want to take a look whether there really isn't an useful |
| 10 |
>> optimization. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Well, there are different opinions on that. I'd like to make the |
| 13 |
> fixpackages script behave the same way as FEATURES="fixpackages", but |
| 14 |
> there is a reason not to do this: the do_upgrade function which actually |
| 15 |
> does all the work for fixpackages (and more) maintains a mtime table |
| 16 |
> when it runs, but it is run by emerge and fixpackages. The problem now |
| 17 |
> is that when do_upgrade runs from emerge without FEATURES="fixpackages" |
| 18 |
> it updates the mtime table, that means the information would be wrong |
| 19 |
> for fixpackages. I guess in the end we will have to add another mtime |
| 20 |
> table for fixpackages to fix this issue. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ah! Allright, thanks for clarifying that. So, can I expect better |
| 23 |
over-all performance if I put 'fixpackages' into my FEATURES, and no |
| 24 |
longer need to use the fixpackages script then? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So long, |
| 28 |
Joe |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
"I use emacs, which might be thought of as a thermonuclear |
| 32 |
word processor." |
| 33 |
-- Neal Stephenson, "In the beginning... was the command line" |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives