| 1 |
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:06:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I agree that the tree should be in sync, but how come I was able to |
| 4 |
> > unmerge the package? It must keep the information somewhere -- and it |
| 5 |
> > didn't tell me anything about having packages with no ebuilds -- that |
| 6 |
> > would have been OK. Maybe that is all I would need, but it didn't |
| 7 |
> > happen. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Because portage noted what files it installed and an unmerge consists |
| 10 |
> only of deleting everything in the list. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> You do not require an ebuild to unmerge something - that would lead to |
| 13 |
> the undesirable situation of needing to delete something that cannot be |
| 14 |
> deleted |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Sometimes you do, because some ebuilds contain prerm and postrm functions |
| 17 |
to be executed. But it's not a problem because portage uses the copy of |
| 18 |
the ebuild in /var/db/pkg. This not only guards against removal of the |
| 19 |
ebuild but any changes to it that would require different actions, |
| 20 |
portage always uses exactly the same ebuild to remove a package that it |
| 21 |
did to install it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But you know that didn't you and I guess you were referring to the |
| 24 |
presence of an ebuild in the tree. All that matters when unmerging is the |
| 25 |
contents of /var/db/pkg. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Microsoft is to Software as McDonalds is to Cuisine |
Archives