Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:21:58
Message-Id: 8f546b5b-3a36-b903-1faf-709bc96cab49@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds by "William L. Thomson Jr."
1 On 10/07/17 04:47 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
2 > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:36:11 -0500
3 > Ben Kohler <bkohler@×××××.com> wrote:
4 >>
5 >> If you want dependencies checked, use the correct option which checks
6 >> them. This takes significantly longer than -C, as it's significantly
7 >> more complex to check for.
8 >>
9 >> As far as I can tell, you are literally asking for -C to behave like
10 >> -c, when you could just be using -c instead.
11 >
12 > No I simply want warnings like that exist for profiles and set packages.
13 >
14 > Also more information when attempting to remove a package that is not
15 > removed.
16 >
17
18 OK, well, as Ben said it's not feasible to make -C act like -c due to
19 the performance hit involved and due to the purpose of the command itself.
20
21 It likely is feasible and may well make sense to add a message to the
22 -c output that states that packages in the provided list aren't
23 removed because they are dependencies. You should open up a bug for
24 that against portage and let the portage dev's sort it out.

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Sets vs Meta ebuilds Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>