On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
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.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:34:21PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
That's not a massive change to vdb behaviour either; file
collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is
basically guranteed
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get
wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on
it and be compliant.
But as it's a FEATURE, they can't assume that at all.
So
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get
wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on
it and be
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
you...).
Well, not anyone. I never had any problems with it.
(YMMV, but soon
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used lafilefixer will tell
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (UTC)
Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh posted on Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:05:54 +0100 as
excerpted:
Because going behind the package mangler's back results in horribly
screwed up systems (as anyone who's ever used
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
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
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
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
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.
11 matches
Mail list logo
