| 1 |
On Sun, 09 May 2010 04:19:20 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> You are right. This has been discussed a few times on -dev and |
| 4 |
> basically, it ain't going to happen. I think it is a good idea myself |
| 5 |
> since they have to be re-emerged for them to work anyway. What |
| 6 |
> difference does it make if portage does it for us or we do it manually, |
| 7 |
> after finding that command to find out which ones to rebuild. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
This could be solved with sets, a @need-rebuild set similar to |
| 10 |
@preserved-rebuild. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Sets also deal with the original suggestion, since re-emerging a set |
| 13 |
rebuild all the components of the set, although not their dependencies, |
| 14 |
unlike rebuilding a meta-package. Although this still can't do what was |
| 15 |
asked for because a set will contain apps and not the libs they depend on. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'll never forget the 1st time I ran Windows, but I'm trying... |
Archives