| 1 |
Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 07:17:07 -0500, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> 1: If I accidentally remove python, portage will not say a word as far |
| 6 |
>> as warning me this is bad. This is what got the OP into this. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Yes, and that's a recent change, presumably as part of the move to make |
| 10 |
> Gentoo and the portage tree work with any valid package manager. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> 2: Once #1 happens, your pretty much screwed because you don't even |
| 14 |
>> have a binary backup even tho it is set in make.conf to have one. That |
| 15 |
>> was the reason I put that setting in make.conf but someone chose to |
| 16 |
>> screw with my setting and its meaning. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system has |
| 20 |
> changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was never a need |
| 21 |
> for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of portage. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
True but the end result is as I described. It's no longer stored |
| 25 |
because it was removed from system, presumably because of other package |
| 26 |
managers not needing it. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> 3: Portage is the package manager for Gentoo. As Alan said, it always |
| 30 |
>> has been and most likely always will. I'm not against having other |
| 31 |
>> package managers but if they are going to start messing up my settings, |
| 32 |
>> then I plan to gripe at least a little. If they are not going to |
| 33 |
>> support buildsyspkg then it needs to be announced and removed. False |
| 34 |
>> security is worse than none at all. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> That's not the case. The problem is that buildsyspkg does exactly what it |
| 38 |
> says, which is not what you want. The definition of buildsyspkg should be |
| 39 |
> changed so that it build binary packages for all packages needed to |
| 40 |
> install @system, not just the packages named in 'system. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
See above. It used to store this but because of the above, it doesn't |
| 44 |
anymore. It's changed because the system file was changed. It appears |
| 45 |
to me that this needs to be added back to system like it used to be. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>> My opinion on how this SHOULD work. If I do a emerge -e system, every |
| 49 |
>> package it builds should have a binary saved for back up. It doesn't |
| 50 |
>> matter if it is a dependency on something else or not, it should be |
| 51 |
>> built and stored. |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> Exactly, and a buildsyspkg user should file an enhancement bug requesting |
| 55 |
> this change in its behaviour. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
>> Dale is going to go change this to buildpkg and run emerge -e system. |
| 59 |
>> |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> That's not the way to deal with it. Address the problem,don't hide from |
| 62 |
> it :) |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
>> Let's see if that even works or not. |
| 66 |
>> |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> It will, at the expense of more storage space. I've used buildpkg for |
| 69 |
> years. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
Dale |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
:-) :-) |
Archives