2010/1/12 Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com:
There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments
on the proposal and just says we should do it anyway, and if you
want it done properly instead, do it yourself.
This is a bit of bullshit, per the norm. There is plenty of
2010/1/17 Tobias Klausmann klaus...@gentoo.org:
No, we'd not do it that way. If we're ditching VDB, the only sane way
to do it is to ditch it with an rm -fr when creating the new layout.
Keeping two sets of data around is going to lead to breakage no matter
how well we do things.
Please also
On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:35:51 -0700
Denis Dupeyron calc...@gentoo.org wrote:
I'm a bit surprised by the low amount of discussions this topic has
generated.
There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments on
the proposal and just says we should do it anyway, and if you want it
Brian,
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
The proposal is pretty simple; if code modifies the vdb in any
fashion, it needs to update the mtime on a file named
'.modification_time' in the root of the vdb.
For example-
1) ${PACKAGE_MANAGER} fires ups,
First of all, feel free to forward this to anyone who is responsible
for code pkged in the tree that access the vdb (/var/db/pkg) in some
fashion.
The proposal is pretty simple; if code modifies the vdb in any
fashion, it needs to update the mtime on a file named
'.modification_time' in the
