Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Grobian <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] Documentation Update
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:06:09
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] Documentation Update by Hasan Khalil
Hasan Khalil wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 2005, at 24:42, Grobian wrote: > >> | Note: With each emerge --sync, the /usr/portage directory is wiped of >> | any user changes. Be sure to keep a log of your development efforts >> | and report your findings to the Gentoo for Mac OS X team. >> >> Ehm, is this really true? I vaguely remember in my first days doing >> this thinking a sync would wipe out my mess, then coming to the >> conclusion it didn't. I don't know exactly how rsync is being called, >> but if a file is newer on the target host, than on the server, is it >> overwritten? I thought rsync is able to optimise by only beaming over >> the changed files on the server side, preventing copying all of the >> files (550MB currently). Somebody slap me with the man page and the >> massive number of options supplied to rsync when running emerge sync >> if I see ghosts here... > > AFAIK, yes. Any time I've made changes to /usr/portage and then did a > sync, regardless of whether or not there was an actual update to that > file in the meanwhile, my changes were overwritten. > > Feel free to attack me with a medium-sized herring if I'm completely > wrong in throwing in said <note>. I just thought that note would be a > nice thing to have in there for anyone who was confused at this > functionality. If anyone feels as though it shouldn't be there, please > let me know and I'd be glad to remove it.
I'm just unsure about it. It think it would be best to anyhow disencourage people to mess with their /usr/portage/ (shoot no, auto completion here ;)). I learnt it somehow the hard way that it is not 'handy' to hack that tree ;) /me mumbles something about lost sources, etc... -- Fabian Groffen eBuild && Porting Gentoo for Mac OS X -- gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list