Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:46:54 +0200 as excerpted:
> 2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 Jonathan Callen <a...@gentoo.org> >> wrote: >> > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use >> > portage". Portage will (by default) remove files on uninstall even if >> > they *do not* match the checksum recorded in the vdb. This implies >> > that most people will *not* see any issues due to something other >> > than the package manager modifying the files behind the package >> > manager's back. >> >> Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/ portage.git;a=commit;h=a133cb89d5279df7febcd0c8ab3890e2ccfb897a > >> Maybe we need to spec VDB after all to avoid that kind of nonsense. > > I think that unmerge-orphans is a useful feature. Indeed. FEATURES=unmerge-orphans is optional which is good, but I'm glad it's there. I've no idea what the default is as I've had that on ever since I saw the changelog entry where it was introduced. That'd likely explain why I never had problems with lafilefixer tho. I'd guess the unmerge-orphans feature and lafilefixer appeared about the same time, at least for ~arch. Of course, I have FEATURES=fixlafiles set too, so it'd be handled by portage automatically now if I didn't have (PKG_)INSTALL_MASK="*.la" killing them but for libtool itself. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
