Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Over using preserve_old_lib, don't do that

[Mike Auty]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 15/07/10 14:57, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> And what about using portage 2.2 and be done with it. I don't see the point in
> reinventing the wheel yet again.

I'm using portage-2.2 and have been since it first came out.  I find the
@set notation invaluable.  I didn't like the preserve-libs feature
however, so I set FEATURES="-preserve-libs".  Unfortunately the eutils
function only checks for the presence of preserve-libs to drop out and
let portage handle it, not the absence of it.  So there's no way to get
that function *not* to leave these extraneous files around, even with 2.2.

As I said, that's fine, and I'm happy with that for extreme situations
(toolchain breaking or libpng/jpg size changes), but I'm not for most of
the other packages.

If portage offers a way to turn off functionality (like preserving
libraries), it should actually turn it off, rather than sometimes turn
it off...

> Imho, revdep-rebuild and all 'misc' tools requiring users' good will like
> python-updater should be obsolete and phased out in favour of package manager
> controlled mechanisms.

You're just moving around the good will, but it's still required.
Instead of typing "revdep-rebuild preserved-libs", you have to type
"emerge @preserved-libs", but neither of those solutions is automatic.

Also, if you feel that way, why not request that preserve-libs be made
mandatory in portage-2.2?  If the changes are big enough, and
not-well-tested enough that they warrant making the feature optional,
then why not ensure that the simpler fallback tools to correct problems
(like revdep-rebuild) can still do the job...

Mike 5:)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkw/GgcACgkQu7rWomwgFXrY5QCeJha63SB9lpl1lLhgq9CqePj8
QsQAniLZpr0RymqtQlXAJVdoCa9eEEjW
=5a5g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----