On Donnerstag 22 Juli 2010, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 21 July 2010 23:14:35 cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > > > > This is a painful process. It's enough to drive a sysadmin to drink > > > > or (god forbid), to Windows. Portage can't help as the ebuild > > > > doesn't know what you have installed. So you must run a script to go > > > > and dig out all this crap for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All I can say is, every day I get down on my knees and offer thanks > > > > that perl is not slotted. > > > > > > But portage should be sensible enough to either run this for you, or > > > stop emerging -- I had a lot of trouble during the last update where I > > > kept getting errors and I emerged a couple of them before I knew I had > > > to run perl-cleaner. > > > > You haven't thought this through and haven't consider how portage knows > > what to do. > > > > Portage doesn't do it because portage can't. > > You want portage to do it != portage can do it. > > > > Consider this: > > > > [I] dev-lang/perl > > > > Installed versions: 5.12.1-r1(23:11:24 21/07/10)(berkdb gdbm -build > > - > > > > debug -doc -ithreads) > > > > [I] dev-perl/DateManip > > > > Installed versions: 5.56(19:39:11 17/07/10)(-test) > > > > When I upgraded perl to 5.12.1-r1, DateManip was not upgraded. Why not? > > because it's version number did not change and that is the ONLY thing > > portage considers. DateManip depends on perl, not on > > =perl-whatever-I-used-to-have > > > > So portage does not know of the link between these two things and cannot > > take them into account. Portage won't be expanded anytime soon either - > > you saw how long it took for perl-cleaner to run, must portage go > > through something like that with every emerge? > > > > Similarly, one could say portage should detect rev-dep breakage. > > Surprise! It doesn't. revdep-rebuild does that (comparable to > > perl-cleaner) and you know how long that takes to run. > > > > So you wasted some time with an upgrade. Well that's a shame. But we > > don't care much, especially if you don't read the elog messages. If you > > feel that portage should does this automagically, and have a plan to > > make it run REAL quick, and have proven, workable, debugged, solid, > > stable patches, then I'm sure Zac would be very happy indeed to hear > > from you. > > > > In the meantime, read the elog messages. > > But I could not read the elog messages,
you can either read them with elogv or have portage send them per email whereever you want. So you can read them, while emerging other stuff.
