Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 20:27:13
Message-Id: assp.0364056d7f.20170710162701.2e522fdd@o-sinc.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds by Rich Freeman
1 On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:55:47 -0400
2 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 3:45 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
5 > <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote:
6 > > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 14:39:00 -0500
7 > > Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com> wrote:
8 > >>
9 > >> > You aren't taking the time to read your own emerge output.
10 > >
11 > > It always says that same generic message. If that is the case, then
12 > > why even have that option?
13 >
14 > The --unmerge option is there to let people shoot themselves in the
15 > feet if they know what they're doing.
16
17 Even then you get a warning for profile and set packages, and not for
18 dependent packages.
19
20 Not sure why anyone would have objection to such a warning like exists
21 for other things. Or providing more information to the user as to why a
22 package was not removed, or should not be removed.
23
24 --
25 William L. Thomson Jr.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com>