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 1QoPLL-0007mh-FD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:29:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 96BBB21C0B0; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pz0-f48.google.com (mail-pz0-f48.google.com [209.85.210.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82A821C04A for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2011 00:29:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32so537670pzk.21 for ; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=2UYEO5bedeHPk+bbkteDHiJEKIcprwQ+nbkD3GBY5Ko=; b=tfIoQ1oJE1w+XPF0EKu6+IoGYt90YNgxa+L9O8W3+yW7mjQTWKhqDFHRbPoPs1wI4D NvBn1wNu/iXq7XuH37C7e6aftJPtQVKdhG03xV14gnR6TSv3vS5y2B/o68wLeLTA+mMf DzUEQHe+FzaAaZiw4V/eA1ENzTzq5oA5QPEUo= Received: by 10.142.127.9 with SMTP id z9mr2159950wfc.223.1312331348207; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (c-76-103-93-73.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [76.103.93.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d3sm375584pbg.76.2011.08.02.17.29.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 17:29:29 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: POSIX capability in Gentoo Message-ID: <20110803002929.GA351@localhost> References: <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> <20110802173846.AF04F21C12C@pigeon.gentoo.org> <20110802183918.5ef5252c@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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110802183918.5ef5252c@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 27e583ee079aa24821381e959374068d 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 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. > > Ugh, seriously? When did that happen? That's a massive change to how > VDB is supposed to work. That's been in place a long while; pkgcore has done it from day one also. 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 single package. Throw in CONFIG_PROTECT for adjusting the behaviour, and you have a far more preferable norm than "lets just leave a shit ton of .pyc/.pyo on the fs". Moving on... ~brian