Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.
Err, how can it make sense?
Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently)
files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't had
the need to modify it...
No flaming intent here, but it does not make sense to me.
m.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
