On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 03:09:47AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 24 December 2005 02:52, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 02:22:06AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > > > Symlinks are handled within portage differently to regular files. Regular > > > files get an mtime check and are removed if it matches. Symlinks don't > > > get an mtime check (even thought the mtime is stored) and are only > > > removed if the symlink's target doesn't exist. Hence, it seems to be this > > > way by design. Why it's this way? Who knows. It's been that way for > > > longer than anyone can remember which is why _it's so important that bugs > > > get filed_. > > > > Honestly, I thought it was supposed to be like that, since > > collision-protect also doesn't protect against packages overwriting > > each other's symlinks (package A and package B can both create > > /dummy -> bin without any problems from portage). > > As far as portage source goes, it is meant to be like that. But as far as > portage source goes, installed package information isn't necessary for dep > calculation (including depclean)... Most code has been reviewed and the major > issues are known by at least one person, but there is still some code that > hasn't suffered a close examination (yet alone reworking) such as the code > that the above bug hits. > > > Do you want a bug report for that? > > Yes, please.
Okay, reported as bug #116511.
pgpLSR78dHprn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
