| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sunday 07 November 2004 21:51, Andres Loeh wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>>The reason is (please correct me if I'm wrong) that, as far as I |
| 8 |
>>can see, when an ebuild is installed on a user's machine, the ebuild |
| 9 |
>>is saved, but not the eclasses it depends on. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> That should be treated as a bug in Portage, and fixed. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> We don't keep old ebuilds in the portage tree, and we certainly don't test old |
| 15 |
> ebuilds against current eclasses. It's just plain bonkers for Portage to be |
| 16 |
> relying on current eclasses like this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I think some method of preserving the old eclasses as ebuilds are on the |
| 19 |
users machine would be far better than trying to version eclasses. How |
| 20 |
much space would be required if each package saved it's eclasses along |
| 21 |
with the ebuild? Would to much space be wasted? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
- -- |
| 24 |
Michael Marineau |
| 25 |
marineam@×××××××××.edu |
| 26 |
Oregon State University |
| 27 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 28 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) |
| 29 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
iD8DBQFBjpvKiP+LossGzjARAq8SAKDDdXmHwVysw/PqpBT5JMPS9bEbcACgzH9D |
| 32 |
fiJNCLHR1oi8DgE5QMukmTA= |
| 33 |
=okKJ |
| 34 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives