| 1 |
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 04:52, Jan Krueger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 08 September 2003 00:28, Martin Schlemmer wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Whoever just forgot to add a 'DEPEND="!ezmlm-idx"' to ezmlm, and |
| 4 |
> > reverse for ezmlm-idx ? I do not see how portage will cause that |
| 5 |
> > individual(s) to forget about that ? |
| 6 |
> Portage allows packages overwriting each other and this i functional |
| 7 |
> deficiency that can not get worser as it is. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
So you want it to check _EVERY_ file that it do not maybe |
| 11 |
belong to another package before merging it to the live filesystem ? |
| 12 |
Oh boy, that really will make portage a speedster. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > Ok, but the merge code in portage could have a bug bigger than anything |
| 15 |
> > pkg_{post,pre}inst() could ever cause. |
| 16 |
> Yes, ist software. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > Right, so that is why we need |
| 19 |
> > all the other safety nets - they could be more buggy ? |
| 20 |
> Sorry, i cant follow you now. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Meaning, you do not trust software, but software should fix |
| 24 |
your 'problem' ? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > Some times it is not so easy. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I know... |
| 29 |
> but should this prevent us from trying? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ok, lets rip out all the pkg_*inst() stuff. I am guessing |
| 33 |
I should not count on you to sweep the pieces together again ? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
What about taking a nice holiday for a change, then come back |
| 36 |
after you pulled up a nice 100+ page draft with suggestions, |
| 37 |
working code, and some sample changes to offensive ebuilds? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Thanks, |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Martin Schlemmer |
| 45 |
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer |
| 46 |
Cape Town, South Africa |
Archives