| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 12/07/12 10:19 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:47:33 -0400 Ian Stakenvicius |
| 6 |
> <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>> Updating vdb shouldn't be an issue here, as long as pkg_postinst |
| 8 |
>> doesn't crash mid-stream. Is the vdb common between package |
| 9 |
>> managers or does each one have a different solution? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Yes, it is common because for many years people keep noticing it |
| 12 |
> is common and using that. In other words, for many there is a |
| 13 |
> failing attempt to stop relying on its format. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
..i'm not following this -- so it's common (ie, portage, paludis, etc |
| 17 |
all use it) because it's always been there? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Anyways, if all the package managers do use it, then there isn't any |
| 20 |
reason at this juncture to not handle this via an update to vdb. If |
| 21 |
in the future different package managers use something different, then |
| 22 |
we'd need to have individual vdb-update scripts for each (differing) |
| 23 |
pms, but unless I misread you this is currently a non-issue.. |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAk/+4GQACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDP8QD9HPv+l8vFW7cm/xA5ksKhUUyD |
| 28 |
xzOtVY93XLL3ArhqlYkBAJxi98IIk5qWib6BK7VckhQLwJVmmHO+xtDPFuhP78rU |
| 29 |
=YIIr |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives