From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EpsIm-0000ZG-7B for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:10:04 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBNJ8Rhw014669; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:08:27 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBNJ5At8000137 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:05:10 GMT Received: from zb101200.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([219.125.101.200] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.54) id 1EpsE1-0003Nb-Lr for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 19:05:09 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 72246201AA6; Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:06:05 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: pkg_{pre,post}inst misusage Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:06:05 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 References: <200512231910.56795.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200512240222.06574.jstubbs@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512240406.05350.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 0c1afdae-5d06-4503-9519-7c58e70fc350 X-Archives-Hash: a2c1451999054a9f0e942ef98b5c6312 On Saturday 24 December 2005 03:43, Duncan wrote: > Jason Stubbs posted <200512240222.06574.jstubbs@gentoo.org>, excerpted > > below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 02:22:06 +0900: > > A quick patch makes symlinks handled similarly to regular files and > > solves the issue. I'll put it into testing unless anybody can come up > > with a reason not to. The case that will be broken by the patch is when > > two different packages install the same symlink. PackageA is > > installed, PackageB is installed, PackageB is uninstalled -> PackageA is > > broken. Does this case exist? > > Yikes! That's not going to remove /lib or /usr/lib or the like, for us on > amd64, where that's a symlink to lib64, will it? > > equery b /lib > [ Searching for file(s) /lib in *... ] > net-analyzer/macchanger-1.5.0-r1 (/lib) > sys-apps/baselayout-1.12.0_pre12 (/lib) > sys-boot/grub-0.97 (/lib) > sys-devel/gcc-4.0.2-r1 (/lib) > sys-devel/gcc-3.4.4-r1 (/lib) > sys-fs/device-mapper-1.01.05 (/lib) > sys-fs/lvm2-2.01.14 (/lib) > sys-fs/udev-078 (/lib) > sys-libs/glibc-2.3.6 (/lib) > > There's a similar, longer list, for /usr/lib. Obviously, not all of > those will own it as a symlink, but it is one, and if removing one happens > to remove the symlink... I'm not familiar with equery so I don't know what this output means. By the look of it, it is only a list of packages that own stuff in that directory. > Also consider the effect where a former dir is now a symlink or a former > symlink is now a dir. The recent xorg directory moves come to mind. With the patch I've done, recorded symlinks will continue to be ignored if the target is not a symlink. > You are /sure/ the new code won't screw anything of that sort up, right? > Maybe that's the reason nobody seems to have been around to know about. > It just sounds like it /could/ be dangerous to me. For some reason, I > don't like the idea of something that could hose a system that badly! =8^\ *Please* don't tell me you run ~arch. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list