Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
On Wed, 2008-04-16 at 07:34 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
<snip>
Case D, Current Behaviour: User tries to upgrade coreutils. User gets a
big flashy block error saying coreutils blocks mktemp. User doesn't
realise that the safe upgrade path is to force the package manager to
ignore the block, then manually uninstall mktemp straight afterwards.
User instead uninstalls mktemp, which is a moderately critical binary.
Or user uninstalls coreutils - yes, a colleague of mine actually did...
/haubi/
So did I BTW. At the time, I understood the portage as if it wanted me
to remove coreutils in order to be replaced by mktemp.
Well, if thing says that it feels bothered by this blockage and would
feel better if I removed it, I obliged it.
Obviously, coreutils implied something with system importance, but I
thought that portage feels confident about it, like it is going to be
replaced with a mktemp in a second or two anyway and portage doesn't
need ot for itself...
Well, I was wrong, and had to make coreutils binpkg on main server and
unpack it on "blocked" machine.
Ofcourse, server was running selinux, so this emand borrowing also a few
libs until I could revive portage...
Regards
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
