1 |
Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 19.51 +0800, William Kenworthy ha |
2 |
scritto: |
3 |
> What are the implications of adding this "snippet" - will it come back |
4 |
> to bite us (users) when the next version of portage comes along? |
5 |
> |
6 |
No, it'll waste a bit of time if it's not removed because the same logic |
7 |
is running twice (once from lafilefixer, once from Portage), but they |
8 |
won't conflict one wit the other, that I can assure you of. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> - none of my systems have a /etc/portage/bashrc so Ive created them, |
11 |
> but |
12 |
> should they be executable, have a hash-bang line, ... ? |
13 |
|
14 |
No need for anything, they are sourced so they can be non-executable and |
15 |
they don't need hash-bangs. |
16 |
|
17 |
> - will this snippet fix the problems with "equery check" marking |
18 |
> libraries as broken after lafilefixer is run? (I presume an emerge -e |
19 |
> world will be needed to update the database ...) |
20 |
|
21 |
The new installed packages with the above post_src_unpack won't cause |
22 |
any vdb-related issues because the files are fixed _before_ the merge to |
23 |
live filesystem and thus the modified file's md5 and mtime will be saved |
24 |
in it. |
25 |
|
26 |
-- |
27 |
Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
28 |
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
29 |
|
30 |
If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
31 |
it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |