| 1 |
On 01/14/2013 07:44 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/14/2013 07:09 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
>> OK i'm a little confused. Putting my earlier note aside, if the |
| 4 |
>> symlink will be auto-cleaned after no packages use it, what's the |
| 5 |
>> point/need for the original message from portage then?? Is it just QA |
| 6 |
>> for the ebuild maintainer? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Unfortunately, there are a number of different possible scenarios. It |
| 9 |
> may serve as QA for the ebuild maintainer. It may be triggered by a |
| 10 |
> symlink that the sysadmin has manually created. In any case, there's a |
| 11 |
> performance penalty, since portage has to search for other packages that |
| 12 |
> installed files underneath the symlink. The performance penalty can be |
| 13 |
> avoided for a given symlink by adding it to UNINSTALL_IGNORE (which |
| 14 |
> makes the message useful, regardless of where the symlink originated from). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You can measure the performance penalty for the /var/run symlink by |
| 17 |
running this command: |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
time portageq owners / /var/run |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Thanks, |
| 23 |
Zac |
Archives