| 1 |
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Il giorno sab, 02/10/2010 alle 19.51 +0800, William Kenworthy ha |
| 3 |
> scritto: |
| 4 |
>> What are the implications of adding this "snippet" - will it come back |
| 5 |
>> to bite us (users) when the next version of portage comes along? |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> No, it'll waste a bit of time if it's not removed because the same logic |
| 8 |
> is running twice (once from lafilefixer, once from Portage), but they |
| 9 |
> won't conflict one wit the other, that I can assure you of. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> - none of my systems have a /etc/portage/bashrc so Ive created them, |
| 12 |
>> but |
| 13 |
>> should they be executable, have a hash-bang line, ... ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> No need for anything, they are sourced so they can be non-executable and |
| 16 |
> they don't need hash-bangs. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> - will this snippet fix the problems with "equery check" marking |
| 19 |
>> libraries as broken after lafilefixer is run? (I presume an emerge -e |
| 20 |
>> world will be needed to update the database ...) |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The new installed packages with the above post_src_unpack won't cause |
| 23 |
> any vdb-related issues because the files are fixed _before_ the merge to |
| 24 |
> live filesystem and thus the modified file's md5 and mtime will be saved |
| 25 |
> in it. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Diego Elio Pettenò — “Flameeyes” |
| 29 |
> http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> If you found a .asc file in this mail and know not what it is, |
| 32 |
> it's a GnuPG digital signature: http://www.gnupg.org/ |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Diego, |
| 37 |
Thanks for the answers and thanks especially for all the work |
| 38 |
you've done over the years. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Cheers, |
| 41 |
Mark |
Archives