| 1 |
On Sunday 14 January 2007 19:08, Iván Pérez Domínguez |
| 2 |
<ivanperezdominguez@×××××.com> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] Telling |
| 3 |
emerge to continue when something goes wrong': |
| 4 |
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
> > I've also attached a longer system update script that I use, for |
| 6 |
> > reference. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I've been taking a look at the script. I wonder why using emerge --sync |
| 9 |
> at the beginning and update-eix at the end instead of an eix-sync. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I want the information returned by eix after the script completes to take |
| 12 |
into account the package updates that may occur during the portage or |
| 13 |
world updates. I also want those updates to take into account the most |
| 14 |
recent portage tree. So, I need a sync operation before the updates and a |
| 15 |
eix-update after them. Thus, I can't combine the two operations into a |
| 16 |
single eix-sync. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
"If there's one thing we've established over the years, |
| 20 |
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest |
| 21 |
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability." |
| 22 |
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives