On 1/17/10 7:28 PM, Krzysiek Pawlik wrote: > On 01/17/10 18:20, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >>> Please: When you run tools which break checksums/dates of the database, >>> give the user the possibility to decide whether he really wants this. >> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for >> example to update the portage database). > Nope, that's a bad idea unless you plan to implement such feature for portage, > paludis and pkgcore (and possibly other package managers). > So use revdep-rebuild (longer but correct solution) or lafilefixer (quicker > but > introduces other problems).
Hmm... last time I tried revdep-rebuild for that problem it either didn't notice something was wrong, or couldn't finish without manual assistance. How about fixing lafilefixer in an other way: it knows which .la files are broken. Instead of changing their contents, it can re-emerge the packages they belong to. But then it probably can't be run automatically by the ebuild (nested emerges). On the other hand, I really wonder how useful the checksums in portage db really are. It includes config files which are frequently modified. It also doesn't include config files the administrator has to create. So for example for verifying system integrity is seems useless to me. I'd expect only a limited group of users caring about the checksum database, and the majority of affected users caring about the update to "just work" (which running lafilefixer --just-fixit automatically would buy us). Paweł Hajdan jr
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
