Summary: | portage should run revdep-rebuild after every merge, perhaps hidden behind FEATURES | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | Donnie Berkholz (RETIRED) <dberkholz> |
Component: | Core | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | VERIFIED LATER | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | mmueller12345 |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Donnie Berkholz (RETIRED)
2004-10-04 09:17:18 UTC
Would rather specify metadata for each ebuild that can be used to determine if a rebuild is required... yeah, this is not a good idea as is the NEEDED stuff that eradicator proposed on the mailing list and that scanelf now creates should be utilized instead Putting a hold on feature requests for portage as they are drowning out the bugs. Most of these features should be available in the next major version of portage. But for the time being, they are just drowning out the major bugs and delaying the next version's progress. Any bugs that contain patches and any bugs for etc-update or dispatch-conf can be reopened. Sorry, I'm just not good enough with bugzilla. ;) Consider this closed as WONTFIX, there are better proposals. |