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