On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:40:35 +, Graham Murray wrote:
> The difference is that with the new @preserved-rebuild the 'old' library
> is not deleted until all of the dependent packages have been
> successfully rebuilt to use the 'new' library.
This also means that if you don't run emerge @preserv
Thanks everyone for the input, it's being quite informative and valuable.
I guess I'll have to research on this at some point. Still I'd like to keep
responses coming if anyone can bring some light into the issue. :)
I am responding only to one post, but I've read Alan's one as well, as
said, than
Jesús Guerrero writes:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:12:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
> > On Monday 02 November 2009 15:58:57 Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:08 +, Neil Bothwick
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0100, Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> >> >> @preserved-
On Monday 02 November 2009 17:01:17 Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:12:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon
>
> wrote:
> > On Monday 02 November 2009 15:58:57 Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:08 +, Neil Bothwick
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0100,
Jesús Guerrero writes:
> Thanks for the feedback. However there's one thing I can't understand:
> whether the libraries are kept of removed is decided at the merge time,
> isn't it? So, whatever breaks, breaks when using "emerge" to update the
> offending library, the one that will break the ABI.
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:12:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> On Monday 02 November 2009 15:58:57 Jesús Guerrero wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:08 +, Neil Bothwick
>>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:58:03 +0100, Jesús Guerrero wrote:
>> >> @preserved-rebuild never worked for me, maybe
6 matches
Mail list logo
