Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Baselayout-2 progress?

[Doug Klima]

Duncan wrote:
> Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> posted 200802291707.17936.roy@×××××××.name,
> excerpted below, on  Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:07:17 +0000:
>
>> On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote:
>>> On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage
>>> (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that
>>> in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and
>>> starting to push it out to users?
>> It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and
>> never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout
>> provides, but it's very very compatible.
>
> Is direct upgrade from previous baselayout-2.0.0-rcX going to be
> supported?  I was running that for some time and just now added and
> upgraded to the via layman version.  There's a blocker, of course, as
> openrc is now providing most of the files that baselayout did.

You just answered your own question. If another package now provides 
files that an existing package provides, they must be blockers. 
Considering baselayout-2.0.0_rcX was a masked version and never 
recommended, it's also not in the direct upgrade path. The proper 
upgrade is what you've detailed out below. Such are the risks when you 
unmask a package and install it on your machine.

>
> The problem is that unmerging the old 2.0.0-rcX baselayout in ordered to
> resolve the blockage is SCARY, since it leaves the system basically
> unbootable until the new setup is merged and at least basically
> configured.  There's also the issue of not knowing for sure just what's
> going to still be around in terms of config files and the like, since
> unmerging baselayout isn't exactly an everyday thing.
>
> FWIW, I took the jump anyway, and the etc-update seemed to go reasonably
> well, but I've not rebooted yet...
>


-- 
Doug Klima <cardoe@g.o>
http://dev.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
-- 
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list