| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:50 on Saturday 23 October 2010, daid kahl |
| 2 |
did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Don't worry about it. I'm not sure if portage-2.1.9.20 will deal with |
| 5 |
> > this automagically (I *think* it does these days and 2.2 definitely |
| 6 |
> > does) but if not just |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > emerge -C shadow ; emerge -1 shadow |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > then emerge -avuND world. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > No good technical reason for doing shadow first apart from getting it |
| 13 |
> > over and done with while you watch and confirm it works fine. Then do |
| 14 |
> > world and wander over to the kettle letting portage go on with doing |
| 15 |
> > it's thing unattended |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> For my own comfort, on a case like this, if I didn't have the portage |
| 18 |
> FEATURE buildpkg or buildsyspkg turned on, I'd make sure that was on |
| 19 |
> and that I had a functional backup of shadow to install from binary, |
| 20 |
> in case something went very wrong. But I tend to be extremely |
| 21 |
> cautious in terms of how I maintain my system, and a lot of that |
| 22 |
> caution is just paranoia. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're NOT out to get you :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Or in this case, it doesn't mean it's not justified. I now have buildpkg |
| 27 |
enabled for @system - everything else I can re-run emerge to fix. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
After watching portage break python *twice* exactly a year apart, watching the |
| 30 |
exciting developments in python-3, after some horrendous shadow breakage 3 |
| 31 |
years ago and the convoluted upgrade path for bash 2 years ago, and someone's |
| 32 |
b0rked commit of glibc-2.12 to the tree quite recently, I feel entirely |
| 33 |
justified in keeping binary copies of @system around. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It long ago stopped being paranoia and started being good old common sense |
| 36 |
(right up there with backups). |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives