On Sun, 2005-06-05 at 13:50 -0400, Michael Cummings wrote: > Solar, > I realize you meant this as a general statement of opinion and not a > flame-baiter, but can you elaborate on: > > On Sunday 05 June 2005 11:37, Ned Ludd wrote: > > Invalidates binary package trees. > > My (wrong?) understanding was that this is addressed when portage runs a > fixpackages (otherwise what's it doing to all those binary packages?). I ask > because its no secret that I'm working on a split up of dev-perl from the > 500+ packages to a better organized, reasonable scenario where packages are > categorized based on, well, category :) rather than on the fact that they > "contain some perl bits or module bits, stuff them in dev-perl".
In my experience, fixpackages doesn't actually fix this sometimes. I've had to phsyically delete the binary package and recreate it for the category to be fixed. Sadly, I haven't had time to search for a bug on it. -- Lance Albertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager --- GPG Public Key: <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc> Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1 4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742 ramereth/irc.freenode.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
