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 1NWZk1-0006Kg-8E for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:20:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 359F0E059B; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA75E059B for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.109] (aasl120.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.5.223.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF3867C7D for ; Sun, 17 Jan 2010 18:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4B5354D9.6040500@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:20:09 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] LibGL.la removal news item for =eselect-opengl-1.1.1-r2 going stable References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig150647E1C0BC2E8E292AF080" X-Archives-Salt: 47e0791d-8515-4bdd-8634-1703543e84eb X-Archives-Hash: cc3abe12cd1e0c2d26c4d0470ae1faa0 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig150647E1C0BC2E8E292AF080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/17/10 6:57 PM, Vaeth wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, "Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> I wonder why the affected package (eselect-opengl) couldn't run >> lafilefixer itself. It's mandatory for all users, and would save a lot= >> of frustration. > It is not mandatory: You could as well re-emerge the affected packages > (shown by revdep-rebuild) which is a much cleaner solution, since it > does not break the portage database like lafilefixer does. I see. To be more precise, I meant "something must be done to have a not-broken system". > 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). Pawe=C5=82 Hajdan jr --------------enig150647E1C0BC2E8E292AF080 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAktTVOAACgkQuUQtlDBCeQKlLwCgh4M1Nx47QuJ0G91qdLU3dCG6 Yt8An2eqkbipLzxdf+8GjY6CC4eKob18 =vPv7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig150647E1C0BC2E8E292AF080--