Jason Stubbs posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 04:06:05 +0900:
>> You are /sure/ the new code won't screw anything of that sort up, right? >> Maybe that's the reason nobody seems to have been around to know about. >> It just sounds like it /could/ be dangerous to me. For some reason, I >> don't like the idea of something that could hose a system that badly! =8^\ > > *Please* don't tell me you run ~arch. Well, I do, plus some stuff from package.mask like gcc-4.x and the associated binutils and glibc stuff. OTOH, I have long run a working and a backup snapshot version of the system portions of my system (everything that packages normally touch), for this very reason -- I'm running unstable, so I should be prepared to boot to the backup if the main system gets hosed, either by my fat-fingering or that of someone else. Still, the last glibc upgrade was more "exciting" than I had anticipated, even if DO say if I wanted boring and reliable, I'd be doing household appliances, not computers. <g> (I'm proud to say I handled it without having to resort to a reboot or the backups, tho... if only because I happened to have an mc instance running in another vt at the time, and I was able to use it to restore enough symlinks manually, to read the documentation, figure out what happened, and restore the others by copying them out of the binpkg.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
