Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Remy Blank <remy.blank@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency?
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:47:50
Message-Id: f96trc$u8s$
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? by "Abraham Marín Pérez"
1 Abraham Marín Pérez wrote:
2 > That is indeed true, however, it will always be better keeping things
3 > right than breaking and fixing as a rule, don't you think?
5 The thing is, you will *have to* break things at some point anyway. In
6 your case, it will be when you decide to update LIB (because you want to
7 have the new features, or because another package needs the new
8 version). Between the LIB update and the APP recompilation, APP will be
9 broken.
11 Even worse, if you don't know that the LIB update will break APP, you
12 might not notice immediately that APP is broken, or you might only get
13 some strange results from APP. That's where revdep-rebuild steps in: it
14 can tell you that APP is broken, and what's needed to fix it. So you're
15 better off running it consistently after your regular updates.
17 -- Remy


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? "Abraham Marín Pérez" <tecnic5@××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: portage inconsistency? Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>