| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58:03AM +0100, Penguin Lover Henry Gebhardt squawked: |
| 2 |
> > So, yes, pwdb is a runtime dependency. I don't actually run pam, so can't |
| 3 |
> > confirm what would happen if I remove pwdb. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Holy shit, what's going on? The ebuild in the portage tree is different than |
| 7 |
> the one in /var/db/pkg/. Is it normal to update an ebuild but not its |
| 8 |
> revision number? Here is the diff: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
---snipped--- |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Damn, I spoke too soon. Just re-synced, and now this pops in the |
| 13 |
Changelog for pam |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
10 Feb 2008; Diego Petten<C3><B2> <flameeyes@g.o> pam-0.99.8.1-r1.ebuild, pam-0.99.9.0.ebuild: |
| 16 |
Remove dependency over pwdb, pam_pwdb is no more present in PAM 0.99, so the dependency was bogus. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So, yeah, pwdb is not a dependency anymore and people can safely |
| 19 |
remove it. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
W |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Somehow I feel like I needed the attention |
| 25 |
~Poly Chan. After his noodle and beef stir-fry stirred the fire |
| 26 |
alarm and caused two fire engines and one ambulance to gather |
| 27 |
outside our dorm door. 06-09-2002 |
| 28 |
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 433 days, 2:43 |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives