On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:22:40 -0400
"Anthony G. Basile" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> What do you think? If its a good idea, is implementing it in an
> >>> eclass the way to go?
> >> Rather in PM. Portage 2.2 already does some library magic due to
> >> preserved-libs, why it can't do something in this area too?
> >>
> > Yeah seems like something a package manager can implement and
> > wouldn't necessarily need anything from ebuilds.
If the PM is going to suggest restarting services, it /needs/ to
revdep-rebuild packages first (and probably implement perl-cleaner and
python-updater and so on) or the restart could well fail.
The reason it works in OpenSUSe is because they distribute binary
packages.
That said, I recently had a deb update on an Ubuntu break installing a
package because the attached service failed to restart when it found an
incompatible runtime configuration option in /etc.
> Agreed for the above reason. I'm not too familiar with portage
> internals. If this is an easy addition for you guys, do you mind
> doing it? Otherwise I'll try to produce a patch.
app-admin/lib_users has some code you might want to look at.
jer
