| 1 |
Hello |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Currently, portage has no diagnostic capability as such that could scour |
| 4 |
the essential parts of the system and act on anomalies. Staying on that |
| 5 |
thought, frequently, when users have problems with portage they are |
| 6 |
resolved by doing the most trivial tasks a fraction of which are given |
| 7 |
below. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
ldconfig |
| 10 |
env-update |
| 11 |
source /etc/profile |
| 12 |
revdep-rebuild (from gentoolkit) |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I wish to propose that all tools that are scattered around the various |
| 15 |
packages intended for diagnosing and maintaining system health be |
| 16 |
integrated into one and included in portage. These diagnostics can be |
| 17 |
assigned to a command within portage which would not only execute them but |
| 18 |
check /etc/make.conf file as well as other essential files for common |
| 19 |
syntax errors such as line breaks in CFLAGS and so on. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This proposal is in an attempt to make portage more centralised and self |
| 22 |
reliant rather than being reliant upon hacks from gentoolkit which remain |
| 23 |
out dated as portage grows. To me it has always seemed that diagnostic |
| 24 |
capability rather than read capability is essential to any system |
| 25 |
administration tool as is already present for other mainstream operating |
| 26 |
systems and this can go a big way in solving problems before they are |
| 27 |
filed as bug reports. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What are your thoughts on the applicability and feasibility of this |
| 30 |
matter? I look forward to hearing from all. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
With regards |
| 33 |
Dhruba Bandopadhyay |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
What if the prophecy is true? What if tommorrow the war could end? |
| 37 |
Isn't that worth fighting for? Isn't that worth dying for? |
| 38 |
-- Morpheus in 'The Matrix Reloaded' - 23 May 2003 |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives