From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NWaVd-0000cz-BC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:10:01 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27F8DE06F3; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:09:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f215.google.com (mail-ew0-f215.google.com [209.85.219.215]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE93DE06F3 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:09:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy7 with SMTP id 7so2697311ewy.30 for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:09:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:from:to:subject :message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=kM1Md97avEzNE8u1QL0xKvWgyh+37Y/lkXy2PjUl93s=; b=xx9L6rLTEe0Ykf8g8+kJUGLnG26ZEx01aff55ucm6cGGEEmeGFMTHaRs0YOe9/7oi5 iSqGgHPhEjjh5oYrY/Bw1wPmHbcXDHA1c1I7XueO9CQgqzLpMrUwK3x+00dG/j2P9mqo cn7VIsXTdSlzsBs4Z7zdCePuHd49dRCXGpB6c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=Z3ruLcfekHK7BNZQk7079yTrxRnjgCz4oUghv8FC2YBC9RhBPZxywd0NwPeCLezQW1 OwGWgWMgG91iCzo8OzJO57IfXpZQxcGLF7eyEBghklMVralzzq2qiCaYV1PCx+d97q53 UkGHyoYOZR9NJgIDLko2nnQ+vojTrOSrHWy/g= Received: by 10.213.79.79 with SMTP id o15mr2878830ebk.70.1263755364894; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:09:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from bbone ([212.75.220.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm4970825eyf.2.2010.01.17.11.09.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:09:24 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:09:21 +0700 From: Max Arnold To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] LibGL.la removal news item for =eselect-opengl-1.1.1-r2 going stable Message-ID: <20100117190921.GA11271@bbone> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4B5354D9.6040500@gentoo.org> <4B5356B7.6090802@gentoo.org> <4B535AAC.50406@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B535AAC.50406@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 88e91e41-8956-4823-8508-184a7b0a7736 X-Archives-Hash: d7ab09fb30bec0159ea9e3c35a65fa25 > >>> Please: When you run tools which break checksums/dates of the database, > >>> give the user the possibility to decide whether he really wants this. > >> Good point, I didn't realize that. However, I'd rather fix the tool (for > >> example to update the portage database). > On the other hand, I really wonder how useful the checksums in portage > db really are. It includes config files which are frequently modified. > It also doesn't include config files the administrator has to create. So > for example for verifying system integrity is seems useless to me. > > I'd expect only a limited group of users caring about the checksum > database, and the majority of affected users caring about the update to > "just work" (which running lafilefixer --just-fixit automatically would > buy us). http://trac.mcs.anl.gov/projects/bcfg2/wiki/Gentoo Section "Package Verification Issues" contains one example of why checksums should be consistent.