| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as |
| 6 |
>> excerpted: |
| 7 |
>> > Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly |
| 8 |
>> > screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell |
| 9 |
>> > you...). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Well, not "anyone". I never had any problems with it. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later |
| 14 |
> when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la |
| 15 |
> files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like |
| 18 |
>> greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might |
| 19 |
>> intend!) |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Well, if you prefer, "anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either |
| 22 |
> looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later |
| 23 |
> on". |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use portage". |
| 27 |
Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if they *do not* |
| 28 |
match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies that most people will |
| 29 |
*not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager |
| 30 |
modifying the files behind the package manager's back. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Jonathan Callen |
Archives