gmane.linux.gentoo.devel

Alin Năstac | 18 Jul 18:34

strange portage behaviour

Portage no longer install ._cfg0000_* files for the CONFIG_PROTECTed 
files touched by the user. Even if I remove the package and reinstall it 
again, the protected file will remain like it is.

Can someone enlighten me?

headers

Zac Medico | 19 Jul 00:38

Re: strange portage behaviour

Alin Năstac wrote:
> Portage no longer install ._cfg0000_* files for the CONFIG_PROTECTed
> files touched by the user. Even if I remove the package and reinstall it
> again, the protected file will remain like it is.
> 
> Can someone enlighten me?
> 

It's common for people get get confused like this by the "confmem"
behavior that's built into portage's merge process. You can use
--noconfmem to disable it.

In newer versions of portage (those not marked stable yet),
uninstalling a package or downgrading it will automatically trigger
behavior like --noconfmem [1], so hopefully this will help to avoid
some confusion in the future.

Zac

[1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/portage?rev=10250&view=rev

headers

Alin Năstac | 19 Jul 08:09

Re: strange portage behaviour

Zac Medico wrote:
> It's common for people get get confused like this by the "confmem"
> behavior that's built into portage's merge process. You can use
> --noconfmem to disable it.
Ah, I didn't knew we had this option, thanks for the info. However, a 
user complained in [1] that net-dialup/ppp failed to update its 
/etc/ppp/ip-{up,down} scripts.

I don't know exactly how it works, but I presume portage will install 
the protected files if the checksum of the new file present in $D is 
different than the one who was there when the old version were 
installed, right?

[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-699957.html