| 1 |
Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 07:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> <snip> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Case D, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade coreutils. User gets a |
| 6 |
>> big flashy block error saying coreutils blocks mktemp. User doesn't |
| 7 |
>> realise that the safe upgrade path is to force the package manager to |
| 8 |
>> ignore the block, then manually uninstall mktemp straight afterwards. |
| 9 |
>> User instead uninstalls mktemp, which is a moderately critical binary. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Or user uninstalls coreutils - yes, a colleague of mine actually did... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> /haubi/ |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
So did I BTW. At the time, I understood the portage as if it wanted me |
| 17 |
to remove coreutils in order to be replaced by mktemp. |
| 18 |
Well, if thing says that it feels bothered by this blockage and would |
| 19 |
feel better if I removed it, I obliged it. |
| 20 |
Obviously, coreutils implied something with system importance, but I |
| 21 |
thought that portage feels confident about it, like it is going to be |
| 22 |
replaced with a mktemp in a second or two anyway and portage doesn't |
| 23 |
need ot for itself... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, I was wrong, and had to make coreutils binpkg on main server and |
| 26 |
unpack it on "blocked" machine. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ofcourse, server was running selinux, so this emand borrowing also a few |
| 29 |
libs until I could revive portage... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives