| 1 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package |
| 4 |
> that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see |
| 5 |
> any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's |
| 6 |
> not being tested to see if it is stable. It would have to be used |
| 7 |
> before that would happen. Basically, it is just one more package to |
| 8 |
> update and taking up hard drive space. It's not doing anything else. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> As for slots, if something needs it, portage would pull in the new |
| 11 |
> slot. That's what portage does. It just seems in this case it is |
| 12 |
> pulling in a new slot that nothing uses. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Have you considered that they might possibly be hundreds of packages that you |
| 15 |
have installed providing functionality that you never use, but are only there |
| 16 |
as a fixed dependencies of something that you do. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Hell lets take it even further than that, i'm sure there are thousands of |
| 19 |
lines of code in most packages that you will never hit, so why dont we start |
| 20 |
"masking" them as well. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I don't recall ever using grep --version, please remove (mask) that code from |
| 23 |
grep. We will obviously need someway to unmask those code masks so lets |
| 24 |
create a couple of files for portage. Hows.... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
code.mask and code.unmask with a format of.... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
package path/to/file line1 line2 line3 line4 |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Or maybe we could just let users who don't want to install python-3 mask it |
| 33 |
_locally_. Once they need it portage is more than capable of telling them |
| 34 |
that. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Dale |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> :-) :-) |
Archives