Zac Medico ha scritto: > Petteri Räty wrote: >> Zac Medico kirjoitti: >>> What do people think about these two approaches? Personally, I >>> would prefer approach #2 for the sake of simplicity and >>> maintainability. The sooner that we start storing eclasses.tbz2 for >>> each installed package, the sooner that we will be able to have more >>> freedom with the eclasses in the live portage tree. >> One thing that comes to mind is that how do we handle the case where the >> old version of the eclass has a major bug in pkg_postrm for example. > > I suppose we could check the live tree for the required eclasses and > use them if they are all available. Perhaps, in that case, we > should use the live ebuild too if it is available. In cases where > something isn't available in the live tree we could fall back to the > saved files as a last resort. We'd have to maintain api > compatibility, but at least there would still be a reasonable chance > for the user to do a normal uninstall after some eclasses have been > removed. > > Zac
could it be the other way around ? Use the saved and if it fail try to use the current? Reason for this is that otherwise you need to maintain in the tree code to un-merge very old packages, needlessy bloating the current, plus experience teach this is very error prone. There is a problem however with this approach, you can't fix bug where the (original ebuild) exit code is "success" but the behaviour is "damn bugged". -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
