| 1 |
On 16/5/2011, at 11:47am, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> ... |
| 3 |
> On that note - I think I asked this a few months ago - I'm assuming I |
| 4 |
> could continue using the old baselayout for a while, if I wanted, |
| 5 |
> emerging updates (skipping the baselayout/OpenRC updates) for a while, |
| 6 |
> without any problems, right? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I don't believe you can do this safely, as I don't believe that the runtime-depends of all other ebuilds distinguish properly between the old baselayout and OpenRC / baselayout2. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There were some comments here the other week about checking for libraries & programs which has been updated / recompiled, but for which the old versions were still in use. The programs `lib_users` and `checkrestart` were mentioned, and sure enough the latter indicated some init.d scripts; however some of these failed to restart, complaining "I'm written for the new baselayout, not this old crap!". |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I run a mostly "stable" x86 system, with a handful of ~x86 packages unmasked by hand, so I can't say this isn't to blame. I personally think the cause is that I synced and updated a handful of packages just as or before the migration warning appeared, and that these were stabilised in preparation for the other. Whatever - I think Portage should be clever enough to say "hang on, this init.d script doesn't match the baselayout verstion - let's not emerge this!", but it doesn't seem to be. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Stroller |
Archives