Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 +0000 (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 >> > you...). >> >> Well, not "anyone". I never had any problems with it. > > You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later > when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la > files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. > >> (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like >> greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might >> intend!) > > Well, if you prefer, "anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either > looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later > on". >
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 *not* see any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. -- Jonathan Callen
