On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 10:28:51PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get
> > wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on
> > it and be compliant.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:26:56 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> Aka, ebuild's should be written to assume the files they install get
> wiped; there is *zero* mention of mtime, nor could any ebuild rely on
> it and be compliant.
But as it's a FEATURE, they can't assume that at all.
So either we spec V
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:34:21PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > That's not a "massive change" to vdb behaviour either; file
> > collisions aren't supposed to occur, as such ownership of the file is
> > basically guranteed back to a si
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> > Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > > That statement needs one more qualification: "and doesn't use
> > > portage". Portage will (by default)
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 06:39:18PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > 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 che
2011-08-02 19:39:18 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a):
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
> Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > 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
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400
Jonathan Callen wrote:
> 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
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 + (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
>
