On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 01:06:36 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > I agree that the tree should be in sync, but how come I was able to > > unmerge the package? It must keep the information somewhere -- and it > > didn't tell me anything about having packages with no ebuilds -- that > > would have been OK. Maybe that is all I would need, but it didn't > > happen. > > Because portage noted what files it installed and an unmerge consists > only of deleting everything in the list. > > You do not require an ebuild to unmerge something - that would lead to > the undesirable situation of needing to delete something that cannot be > deleted
Sometimes you do, because some ebuilds contain prerm and postrm functions to be executed. But it's not a problem because portage uses the copy of the ebuild in /var/db/pkg. This not only guards against removal of the ebuild but any changes to it that would require different actions, portage always uses exactly the same ebuild to remove a package that it did to install it. But you know that didn't you and I guess you were referring to the presence of an ebuild in the tree. All that matters when unmerging is the contents of /var/db/pkg. -- Neil Bothwick Microsoft is to Software as McDonalds is to Cuisine
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
