From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28404 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Oct 2003 15:31:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 28573 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 15:31:49 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:31:38 +0200 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Message-Id: <20031020173138.2da98efa.genone@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <200310202301.22990.jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> References: <20031020131233.3b687c01.genone@gentoo.org> <200310202301.22990.jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: H@&[wkk?l:Zx:8i_5bViK&{Vz{c{~r),^&:v/r#+X5dmfA6qCl)~'Ul{"&06Q1[05.%v&c>je5R{=xLnx^=~lN~rO0xuR~~NY)CX\"Nc4$9CBPwDl-.pYuVeGdir86L@\:j?7@%Ej2?Wi-Y0=1]T14ce0w79Bckk[*ti{;iA"{;I}&E~.msRBsBS)N!CS4Gd|_UR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Mon__20_Oct_2003_17_31_38_+0200_v=aBlVDI5BOMJBIl" Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stupid question regarding 'fixpackages' X-Archives-Salt: 556368d7-ec06-44df-bea5-b0f1a48916a9 X-Archives-Hash: aaf466720d8cdd2ec33cdb14512d65f2 --Signature=_Mon__20_Oct_2003_17_31_38_+0200_v=aBlVDI5BOMJBIl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/20/03 Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2003 20:12, Marius Mauch wrote: > > On 10/20/03 Joachim Breuer wrote: > > > Now, my question is: Shouldn't fixpackages 'stabilize', i.e. not > > > perform global updates it has already performed? The way it is now > > > I'd hate to think what an upgrade will be like a year or two from > > > now... If this 'stabilizing' cannot be done I'd like to know for > > > what reason, perhaps I'd want to take a look whether there really > > > isn't an useful optimization. > > > > Well, there are different opinions on that. I'd like to make the > > fixpackages script behave the same way as FEATURES="fixpackages", > > but there is a reason not to do this: the do_upgrade function which > > actually does all the work for fixpackages (and more) maintains a > > mtime table when it runs, but it is run by emerge and fixpackages. > > The problem now is that when do_upgrade runs from emerge without > > FEATURES="fixpackages" it updates the mtime table, that means the > > information would be wrong for fixpackages. I guess in the end we > > will have to add another mtime table for fixpackages to fix this > > issue. > > I hate to sound lame, but I'm not sure I followed that correclty. > fixpackages, when called using FEATURES, only fixes the packages that > the emerge process touches? And, when calling fixpackages directly, it > processes all packages? Is that correct? If not, can you please > explaing the difference between the two? No, both versions touch all packages, the difference is that the FEATURES thing will only use updates files (in /usr/portage/profiles/updates) that were changed since the last run while the fixpackages script always uses all update files for the reasons I outlined above. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. --Signature=_Mon__20_Oct_2003_17_31_38_+0200_v=aBlVDI5BOMJBIl Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/k//eWzrL1pM7SNcRAtIAAJ9sgnlDfVkZR0jWpz5EB6cC7TuHMQCfdYyl gRkwJUF+2vmdGKhoc6EuMfs= =DTLO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Mon__20_Oct_2003_17_31_38_+0200_v=aBlVDI5BOMJBIl--