| 1 |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 08:14:52 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> However, please |
| 5 |
> + do not include it in the <c>package.mask</c> entry as users do not need |
| 6 |
> + to be forced to proactively unmerge it. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I can think of a utilitarian value of doing this anyway. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Namely, it gives a window during `emerge -uD @world` where portage |
| 11 |
tells you that they have a masked package installed, and the reason. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Ideally, people don't have virtuals in their world file, but they do |
| 14 |
anyway, which means you can't guarantee the lack of dependents |
| 15 |
resulting in a depclean directed purge. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
And this can matter, as if its in your world file, or sometimes, if its |
| 18 |
even still installed, portage can trip up during upgrades with a more |
| 19 |
confusing error about the virtual not being installable. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Outdated overlays add to this problem somewhat. :/ |
Archives