| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 July 2010 23:14:35 covici@××××××××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> > This is a painful process. It's enough to drive a sysadmin to drink or |
| 3 |
> > (god forbid), to Windows. Portage can't help as the ebuild doesn't know |
| 4 |
> > what you have installed. So you must run a script to go and dig out all |
| 5 |
> > this crap for you. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > All I can say is, every day I get down on my knees and offer thanks that |
| 10 |
> > perl is not slotted. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> But portage should be sensible enough to either run this for you, or |
| 13 |
> stop emerging -- I had a lot of trouble during the last update where I |
| 14 |
> kept getting errors and I emerged a couple of them before I knew I had |
| 15 |
> to run perl-cleaner. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You haven't thought this through and haven't consider how portage knows what |
| 18 |
to do. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Portage doesn't do it because portage can't. |
| 21 |
You want portage to do it != portage can do it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Consider this: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[I] dev-lang/perl |
| 26 |
Installed versions: 5.12.1-r1(23:11:24 21/07/10)(berkdb gdbm -build - |
| 27 |
debug -doc -ithreads) |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[I] dev-perl/DateManip |
| 30 |
Installed versions: 5.56(19:39:11 17/07/10)(-test) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
When I upgraded perl to 5.12.1-r1, DateManip was not upgraded. Why not? |
| 34 |
because it's version number did not change and that is the ONLY thing portage |
| 35 |
considers. DateManip depends on perl, not on =perl-whatever-I-used-to-have |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
So portage does not know of the link between these two things and cannot take |
| 38 |
them into account. Portage won't be expanded anytime soon either - you saw how |
| 39 |
long it took for perl-cleaner to run, must portage go through something like |
| 40 |
that with every emerge? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Similarly, one could say portage should detect rev-dep breakage. Surprise! It |
| 43 |
doesn't. revdep-rebuild does that (comparable to perl-cleaner) and you know |
| 44 |
how long that takes to run. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
So you wasted some time with an upgrade. Well that's a shame. But we don't |
| 47 |
care much, especially if you don't read the elog messages. If you feel that |
| 48 |
portage should does this automagically, and have a plan to make it run REAL |
| 49 |
quick, and have proven, workable, debugged, solid, stable patches, then I'm |
| 50 |
sure Zac would be very happy indeed to hear from you. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
In the meantime, read the elog messages. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives