| 1 |
On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular |
| 4 |
> > files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't |
| 5 |
> > get an mtime check (even thought the mtime is stored) and are only |
| 6 |
> > removed if the symlink's target doesn't exist. Hence, it seems to be this |
| 7 |
> > way by design. Why it's this way? Who knows. It's been that way for |
| 8 |
> > longer than anyone can remember which is why _it's so important that bugs |
| 9 |
> > get filed_. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Honestly, I thought it was supposed to be like that, since |
| 12 |
> collision-protect also doesn't protect against packages overwriting |
| 13 |
> each other's symlinks (package A and package B can both create |
| 14 |
> /dummy -> bin without any problems from portage). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As far as portage source goes, it is meant to be like that. But as far as |
| 17 |
portage source goes, installed package information isn't necessary for dep |
| 18 |
calculation (including depclean)... Most code has been reviewed and the major |
| 19 |
issues are known by at least one person, but there is still some code that |
| 20 |
hasn't suffered a close examination (yet alone reworking) such as the code |
| 21 |
that the above bug hits. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> Do you want a bug report for that? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, please. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives