| 1 |
Jean-Michel Smith wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Thursday 30 May 2002 05:57 am, Dan Naumov wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>Hey. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>I would like to know whether some kind of reverse-dependency support is |
| 9 |
>>going to be included in Portage2. It would be nice if in case of |
| 10 |
>>unmerging a package, Portage would let the user know whether some |
| 11 |
>>installed packages need it and if so, what packages do. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>I would second that feature request. It would also allow for some intelligent |
| 16 |
>'auto-healing' of the system, by allowing one to (optionally) recompile any |
| 17 |
>packages dependent on an ebuild that has just been upgraded so they run |
| 18 |
>against the newest version or warning one before a package upon which others |
| 19 |
>rely is removed. This is the one feature I miss most about Source Mage |
| 20 |
>(sorcerer). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>Jean. |
| 23 |
>_______________________________________________ |
| 24 |
>gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 25 |
>gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 26 |
>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
Yes, that must be something that the next version of portage address. |
| 31 |
I also second that feature request! |
Archives