-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 15/07/10 14:57, Maciej Mrozowski wrote: > And what about using portage 2.2 and be done with it. I don't see the point > in > reinventing the wheel yet again.
I'm using portage-2.2 and have been since it first came out. I find the @set notation invaluable. I didn't like the preserve-libs feature however, so I set FEATURES="-preserve-libs". Unfortunately the eutils function only checks for the presence of preserve-libs to drop out and let portage handle it, not the absence of it. So there's no way to get that function *not* to leave these extraneous files around, even with 2.2. As I said, that's fine, and I'm happy with that for extreme situations (toolchain breaking or libpng/jpg size changes), but I'm not for most of the other packages. If portage offers a way to turn off functionality (like preserving libraries), it should actually turn it off, rather than sometimes turn it off... > Imho, revdep-rebuild and all 'misc' tools requiring users' good will like > python-updater should be obsolete and phased out in favour of package manager > controlled mechanisms. You're just moving around the good will, but it's still required. Instead of typing "revdep-rebuild preserved-libs", you have to type "emerge @preserved-libs", but neither of those solutions is automatic. Also, if you feel that way, why not request that preserve-libs be made mandatory in portage-2.2? If the changes are big enough, and not-well-tested enough that they warrant making the feature optional, then why not ensure that the simpler fallback tools to correct problems (like revdep-rebuild) can still do the job... Mike 5:) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkw/GgcACgkQu7rWomwgFXrY5QCeJha63SB9lpl1lLhgq9CqePj8 QsQAniLZpr0RymqtQlXAJVdoCa9eEEjW =5a5g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
