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

Reply via email to