| 1 |
Alastair Tse wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2003-05-30 at 12:15, MAL wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>a) possibly portage has a function to specify that access to |
| 6 |
>>/etc/gtk-2.0/gtk.immodules is allowed. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Thats a no no. Unless there is absolutely no way to patch that |
| 10 |
> behaviour. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>>b) I provide a patch to the sources to stop this happening, then do it |
| 14 |
>>myself in the ebuild after install. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> You have to patch that part out and make sure you can produce the same |
| 18 |
> effect during pkg_postinst() and also reverse the effect when you do |
| 19 |
> pkg_postrm() (if possible.) You need to test it pretty well to make sure |
| 20 |
> pkg_postinst() and pkg_postrm() works as expected, esp in regards |
| 21 |
> prefixing paths with ${ROOT} when writing files, etc. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for the info, see what you think: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21953 |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Is it better to upload an ebuild as a .tar.bz2 with digests, patches |
| 28 |
etc. all included? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Cheers, |
| 31 |
MAL |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives