Re: [gentoo-user] Re: I don't understand Perl. What do I do after an update?

[covici@ccs.covici.com]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:


> On Wednesday 21 July 2010 23:14:35 covici@ccs.covici.com wrote:
> > > This is a painful process. It's enough to drive a sysadmin to drink or
> > > (god  forbid), to Windows. Portage can't help as the ebuild doesn't know
> > > what you have installed. So you must run a script to go and dig out all
> > > this crap for you.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > All I can say is, every day I get down on my knees and offer thanks that
> > > perl  is not slotted.
> > 
> > But portage should be sensible enough to either run this for you, or
> > stop emerging -- I had a lot of trouble during the last update where I
> > kept getting errors and I emerged a couple of them before I knew I had
> > to run perl-cleaner.
> 
> You haven't thought this through and haven't consider how portage knows what 
> to do.
> 
> Portage doesn't do it because portage can't.
> You want portage to do it != portage can do it.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> [I] dev-lang/perl
>      Installed versions:  5.12.1-r1(23:11:24 21/07/10)(berkdb gdbm -build -
> debug -doc -ithreads)
> 
> [I] dev-perl/DateManip
>      Installed versions:  5.56(19:39:11 17/07/10)(-test)
> 
> 
> When I upgraded perl to 5.12.1-r1, DateManip was not upgraded. Why not? 
> because it's version number did not change and that is the ONLY thing portage 
> considers. DateManip depends on perl, not on =perl-whatever-I-used-to-have
> 
> So portage does not know of the link between these two things and cannot take 
> them into account. Portage won't be expanded anytime soon either - you saw how 
> long it took for perl-cleaner to run, must portage go through something like 
> that with every emerge?
> 
> Similarly, one could say portage should detect rev-dep breakage. Surprise! It 
> doesn't. revdep-rebuild does that (comparable to perl-cleaner) and you know 
> how long that takes to run.
> 
> So you wasted some time with an upgrade. Well that's a shame. But we don't 
> care much, especially if you don't read the elog messages. If you feel that 
> portage should does this automagically, and have a plan to make it run REAL 
> quick, and have proven, workable, debugged, solid, stable patches, then I'm 
> sure Zac would be very happy indeed to hear from you.
> 
> In the meantime, read the elog messages.
But I could not read the elog messages, the emerge was going on, till I
got the first error and I didn't realize that portage had upgraded  perl
-- the only thing I would like portage to do is to know that something
must be run and stop so I can do this.  You could have a list of
packages which require a stop after emerging or something.  I am
thinking out loud here, but this is what I am trying to say.

-- 
Your life is like a penny.  You're going to lose it.  The question is:
How do
you spend it?

         John Covici
         covici@ccs.covici.com