| 1 |
On Sunday 20 March 2005 03:38, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 02:54:46 +0900 Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | With package.mask'ed packages, it would have been better to just drop |
| 6 |
> | them altogether. For unmasked packages, you would just replace them |
| 7 |
> | with skeletons that dep on the replacement package. See the still |
| 8 |
> | existing sys-apps/fileutils-4.1.11-r2 ebuild. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Bleeeeuhhhhh. If I file a bug asking for MERGE functionality in updates, |
| 11 |
> will it get anywhere? Or is this another one of those "if portage finds |
| 12 |
> something it doesn't understand in a file it will traceback" situations? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It'd be one of those ones that sit for months/years. It should be a rare |
| 15 |
situation and work required to have it done automatically far outweighs the |
| 16 |
benefit at this time. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The first issue that comes to mind is a different record of md5/mtime - which |
| 19 |
to use and what if neither match? Another issue is what if there are three |
| 20 |
packages being merged into one but the user only has two of them installed - |
| 21 |
what to do? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
There are probably more issues, but it should be plain that it's not so |
| 24 |
simple. And, for the record, portage will just emit an error if a malformed |
| 25 |
line is found in an updates file. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regards, |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives