| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico kirjoitti: |
| 6 |
>> What do people think about these two approaches? Personally, I |
| 7 |
>> would prefer approach #2 for the sake of simplicity and |
| 8 |
>> maintainability. The sooner that we start storing eclasses.tbz2 for |
| 9 |
>> each installed package, the sooner that we will be able to have more |
| 10 |
>> freedom with the eclasses in the live portage tree. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> One thing that comes to mind is that how do we handle the case where the |
| 13 |
> old version of the eclass has a major bug in pkg_postrm for example. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I suppose we could check the live tree for the required eclasses and |
| 16 |
use them if they are all available. Perhaps, in that case, we |
| 17 |
should use the live ebuild too if it is available. In cases where |
| 18 |
something isn't available in the live tree we could fall back to the |
| 19 |
saved files as a last resort. We'd have to maintain api |
| 20 |
compatibility, but at least there would still be a reasonable chance |
| 21 |
for the user to do a normal uninstall after some eclasses have been |
| 22 |
removed. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Zac |
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFFTIK3/ejvha5XGaMRAiRTAKCV31alUOZjVaC5qh3iWNBlEuW/wwCdFxiz |
| 29 |
TgJ4hqxMap9thhy1VIEQrOk= |
| 30 |
=o5pR |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives