| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 +0000 (UTC), James wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to |
| 4 |
> > be protected. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces |
| 7 |
> by a "reinstall". Does this do more than if I just reboot after |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> emerge @system @world and then reboot? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'd be curious to know exactly what reinstall does that is not |
| 12 |
> covered by just starting up a given code again? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Is it that it forces a reinstall and stop/starts the binary without |
| 15 |
> rebooting? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Rebooting catches *everything* even better than --emptytree ? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
--emptytree has nothing to do with rebooting. It simply forces emerge to |
| 20 |
rebuild everything in @world and their dependencies. Once you have done |
| 21 |
that, you will have daemons still running the old code, which you could |
| 22 |
fix with a reboot, or you could run checkrestart and restart only the |
| 23 |
affected programs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
After an emerge -e @world, a reboot is probably best, another reason to |
| 26 |
avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e @world in the first place. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Top Oxymorons Number 20: Synthetic natural gas |
Archives