| 1 |
Arttu V. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 1/24/10, Benny Pedersen <me@××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> should not be marked as system ? |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> it removes python-wrapper and this remove python link from |
| 7 |
>> /usr/bin/python linked to /usr/bin/python-wrapper so all portage does |
| 8 |
>> not work after this, but i solved it with a quickpkg from another host |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> my dump question why is it not listed as a system pkg when it really |
| 11 |
>> seems so important ? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Nearly identical question was mulled over in a discussion last spring |
| 15 |
> over at gentoo-user list. Scan for "ARGH I uninstalled python" in the |
| 16 |
> archives if you are interested. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> IIRC there was a suggestion to make the system set dynamically grow to |
| 19 |
> contain all of the required dependencies of the packages explicitly |
| 20 |
> listed in the system set, but I'm not sure if it went anywhere. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Anyways, the current contents of @system cause all kinds of surprises, |
| 23 |
> for example to FEATURES="buildsyspkg" users who rely on the feature |
| 24 |
> without realizing how small (and even "incomplete") @system actually |
| 25 |
> is. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I just picked a random reply here. My $0.02 worth. If I try to remove |
| 30 |
portage itself, I get this: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
root@smoker / # emerge -Ca portage |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged: |
| 35 |
* Not unmerging package sys-apps/portage-2.2_rc61 since there is no valid |
| 36 |
* reason for portage to unmerge itself. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>>> No packages selected for removal by unmerge |
| 39 |
root@smoker / # |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It appears you can't even remove portage at all. Now call me silly, |
| 42 |
couldn't it be said that removing something that would prevent the |
| 43 |
package manager from working constitute a little warning? After all, |
| 44 |
most likely the person is not thinking clearly that day and most likely |
| 45 |
doesn't REALLY want to do this. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Is there not a way to at the very least post a warning and then ask a |
| 48 |
'are you sure' question like it does with the -a option? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
It's just that as a newbie ages ago, I did this too. I didn't realize |
| 51 |
that it was a nasty boo boo until afterwards. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
< dale crawls back under his rock > |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Dale |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
:-) :-) |
Archives