| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 09 May 2010 04:19:20 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> You are right. This has been discussed a few times on -dev and |
| 6 |
>> basically, it ain't going to happen. I think it is a good idea myself |
| 7 |
>> since they have to be re-emerged for them to work anyway. What |
| 8 |
>> difference does it make if portage does it for us or we do it manually, |
| 9 |
>> after finding that command to find out which ones to rebuild. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
> This could be solved with sets, a @need-rebuild set similar to |
| 12 |
> @preserved-rebuild. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Sets also deal with the original suggestion, since re-emerging a set |
| 15 |
> rebuild all the components of the set, although not their dependencies, |
| 16 |
> unlike rebuilding a meta-package. Although this still can't do what was |
| 17 |
> asked for because a set will contain apps and not the libs they depend on. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I actually created a xorg-drivers set for this. At least I have |
| 22 |
something easier to type in rather than that somewhat small line of |
| 23 |
chicken scratch. lol |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I just hate trying to start X after a upgrade, it not starting and me |
| 26 |
usually with no clue as to why. I ran into this the other day and I |
| 27 |
don't think xorg was even updated. Still not sure why it failed but |
| 28 |
rebuilding those got it working again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Dale |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
:-) :-) |
Archives