| 1 |
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:06:17 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > When you think about it, the very name "overlay" indicates that this |
| 4 |
> > is how it should work. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I suppose there's no way to avoid there being *some* issue-- this way, |
| 7 |
> you have to actively watch Portage to see if today is perhaps the happy |
| 8 |
> day that your overlay build is obsoleted; the other way, Portage would |
| 9 |
> be obsoleting your overlay build arbitrarily. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
As long as your build is working the portage one wouldn't really obsolete |
| 12 |
it. However, if you've altered an ebuild to suit your needs, you don't |
| 13 |
want it replacing by the portage one just because the dev has corrected a |
| 14 |
typo in a comment, altering the file's date. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I don't see either of these as optimal conditions (since the goal, imo, |
| 17 |
> is to be using Portage builds and as few overlay builds as possible, and |
| 18 |
> neither of these conditions gives you a painless way to Return To |
| 19 |
> Portage, as it were), but I agree that the way it's currently done is |
| 20 |
> the better of two sub-optimal choices. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I suppose it would be possible to write a script that compares the ebuild |
| 23 |
of everything you have installed from an overlay with the main portage |
| 24 |
tree and warns you if there's been an update. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Blessed be the pessimist for he hath made backups. |
Archives