On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400
> James Cloos wrote:
>> OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local
>> changes.
>
> Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata,
> horrible things happen.
Why n
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400
James Cloos wrote:
> OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local
> changes.
Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata,
horrible things happen.
> If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some
> r
> "ZM" == Zac Medico writes:
>> Portage does not need to validate eclass changes.
ZM> Then how do you propose that it handles metadata changes that are
ZM> attributed to eclass changes? For example, see the issue they had
ZM> with vmware.eclass changes in this bug:
ZM> http://bugs.gentoo.
> "ZM" == Zac Medico writes:
ZM> It's called eclass-overrides and it's been mentioned earlier in the thread.
But that is useless unless you ignore the metadata cache. And ignoring the
metadata cache makes portage unusably slow.
It needs to work exacly as I described it.
And lets not forge
