On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:06:17 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: > > When you think about it, the very name "overlay" indicates that this > > is how it should work. > > I suppose there's no way to avoid there being *some* issue-- this way, > you have to actively watch Portage to see if today is perhaps the happy > day that your overlay build is obsoleted; the other way, Portage would > be obsoleting your overlay build arbitrarily.
As long as your build is working the portage one wouldn't really obsolete it. However, if you've altered an ebuild to suit your needs, you don't want it replacing by the portage one just because the dev has corrected a typo in a comment, altering the file's date. > I don't see either of these as optimal conditions (since the goal, imo, > is to be using Portage builds and as few overlay builds as possible, and > neither of these conditions gives you a painless way to Return To > Portage, as it were), but I agree that the way it's currently done is > the better of two sub-optimal choices. I suppose it would be possible to write a script that compares the ebuild of everything you have installed from an overlay with the main portage tree and warns you if there's been an update. -- Neil Bothwick Blessed be the pessimist for he hath made backups.
pgpruXNlp4Omo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
