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 |
> :-) :-) |