| 1 |
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:19:32 +1000 |
| 2 |
"Sam Jorna (wraeth)" <wraeth@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 12/07/17 15:14, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Is it in system? |
| 6 |
> > Is it in a set? |
| 7 |
> > Is it in world? |
| 8 |
> > If no to all, its a dep, warn! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> All this says is whether the package was explicitly installed and |
| 11 |
> recorded in world, or is a member of @system. The target package may |
| 12 |
> or may not be a dependency, may or may not have been --oneshot'd. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Then when the user sees the warning they can discard knowing they |
| 15 |
merged the package with --oneshot. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What harm does a warning do? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> It may have been installed as a dependency but the requiring package |
| 20 |
> was removed, |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Then the person failed to run --depclean and maintain their system. |
| 23 |
Either way, did the person install the package directly? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
If the package was not installed by the user. Should they not be warned |
| 26 |
about removing something they did not install? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> or may have been installed as an orphan but is now a |
| 29 |
> dependency. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Now being a dependency the warning would be valid. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
>Assuming that if it's not in a set it must be a dependency is |
| 34 |
>incorrect and misleading. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Again there are various ways. There cannot be that much overhead to |
| 37 |
check if a single package depends on one being removed. If you cannot |
| 38 |
use simpler methods as mentioned. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Clearly people have objections to warnings about packages users did not |
| 41 |
install themselves.... |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives