| 1 |
On Sun, 2004-02-29, 16:15:46 +0100, in |
| 2 |
<20040229161546.4bd04a74@××××××××××××××××××.net>, Marius Mauch |
| 3 |
<genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> On 02/28/04 Jeremy Huddleston wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 02:55, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > I agree with Jason - a config file that hasn't been modified |
| 7 |
> > > shouldn't be config-protected. No information is lost when the |
| 8 |
> > > file is removed, and if a Gentoo user has edited the file, it'll |
| 9 |
> > > get picked up because of the change in timestamp and md5sum. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > It should be left. Consider this case: $ emerge packageA |
| 12 |
> > /etc/services is modified to contain a reference for packageA |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > $ emerge packageB /etc/services is modified to contain a reference |
| 15 |
> > for packageB |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Two packages owning the same file is a bug, no matter if the file is |
| 18 |
> CONFIG_PROTECTed or not. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Not so! try: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
equery belongs '^/usr$' |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes, '/usr' is a directory and, yes, I am arguing a straw man but... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
In many cases, two or more packages will use and provide a common file. |
| 27 |
The bug, as I see it, is the fact that packages may clobber or remove |
| 28 |
files which other packages need. Our current workaround is to prevent |
| 29 |
any two packages from owning the same file. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
A better approach (and probably portage-ng material) would be cleaner |
| 32 |
handling of shared files. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Our viewpoints may actually differ, so I will ask: How is it a bug if |
| 35 |
two packages own the same file? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Batou: Hey, Major... You ever hear of "human rights"? |
| 39 |
Kusanagi: I understand the concept, but I've never seen it in action. |
| 40 |
--Ghost in the Shell |
Archives