| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:08:54 -0500 |
| 2 |
Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 5 |
> <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > If people understood, then saying use -c or -C makes no sense. It |
| 9 |
> > does not address the lack of output from either I am talking about. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > -- |
| 12 |
> > William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> I really thought I understood you in that you wanted true reverse |
| 15 |
> dependencies calculated, to check against that, and warn for it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You are correct in that. Which the -c option already does. It just does |
| 18 |
not tell you why it did not remove a package. When you add -v/verbose. |
| 19 |
It shows you the deps, or some. But it does not tell you it will not |
| 20 |
remove because those packages depend on it. Seems obvious, but if you |
| 21 |
did not use -v/verbose. You do not see those deps, and just have to |
| 22 |
assume. Even when the deps are shown. The user must assume the package |
| 23 |
was not removed due to deps, because its not saying explicitly. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It is not changing anything with the -c option. Other than generating |
| 26 |
some additional generic text for the user as part of its current output |
| 27 |
and function. With package A being the one they are trying to remove. |
| 28 |
The rest would be boiler plate |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
"Package ${PN} not removed due to dependencies" |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> I think that you are actually talking about a warning upon forced |
| 33 |
> unmerge of anything not in /var/lib/portage/world, is that correct? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
That is also correct. Its two fold. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
- If using -c, the deps are known, or at least some, and takes time. |
| 38 |
The output just needs to say will not remove because of deps. Not |
| 39 |
specifically what deps. It could in theory stop on the first |
| 40 |
encountered to save time, and only go further if -v is specified. |
| 41 |
Which it may now I have not looked at the code. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
- If using -C it should at minimum check if the package is in |
| 44 |
world/user installed, and say something otherwise. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That part does not require it to resolve deps. Just check world file, |
| 47 |
assuming its correct. Though could be thrown off if say gcc, or another |
| 48 |
was in the world file. I think the profile or set would catch that as |
| 49 |
it does now and generate a warning, regardless. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Now in the case of no world file, or something, they maybe revert back |
| 52 |
to some of the behavior of -c. with -C. But I would think if no world |
| 53 |
file, or packages in world. Then the user did not emerge anything or |
| 54 |
nuked that file. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
The -C option already seems to check say a profile and set file. |
| 57 |
Otherwise how would it know that package was in either. Seems the same |
| 58 |
could be done for a package not in either of those files, or world. To |
| 59 |
warn, your removing a package you did not install. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I will file 2 bugs, that should be straight forward and clear. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives