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 1QoIvy-0000tY-I1 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:39:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C5E4021C25F; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:39:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0574621C090 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:38:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jonathan-laptop.localnet (pool-173-71-205-68.clppva.fios.verizon.net [173.71.205.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: abcd) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14C181B4007 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:38:35 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" From: Jonathan Callen Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:36:12 -0400 User-Agent: KNode/4.8 pre Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <4E356A0C.7070004@gentoo.org> <4E35B468.10604@gentoo.org> <20110802090832.2cd03a32@pomiocik.lan> <4E3809AA.2050609@gentoo.org> <20110802153134.7cab1727@googlemail.com> <4E380EEA.6080505@gentoo.org> <20110802155454.5fb24cb4@googlemail.com> <4E38123E.90709@gentoo.org> <20110802160554.68059c64@googlemail.com> <20110802181717.6e156630@googlemail.com> 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 Message-Id: <20110802173905.C5E4021C25F@pigeon.gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: bb60d1b6e07527568ff52c2482a0f3a2 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:11:28 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@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 >> > you...). >> >> Well, not "anyone". I never had any problems with it. > > You did, you just didn't notice it. You'll find out sooner or later > when you get bitten by one of the will-never-be-uninstalled-now .la > files that it modified on your system without updating VDB. > >> (Observation: Unqualified any/all statements are rather like >> greedy .* regex handling, sometimes they include more than one might >> intend!) > > Well, if you prefer, "anyone who's ever used lafilefixer and then either > looked carefully at what happened or got hit by random nastiness later > on". > 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 any issues due to something other than the package manager modifying the files behind the package manager's back. -- Jonathan Callen