Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:10:43
Message-Id: 7b07a570-54d4-3b7d-4953-d25c43d54406@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm by Michael Orlitzky
1 On 30/08/17 10:04 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 08/30/2017 09:46 AM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
3 >>
4 >> For adding this to FEATURES and RESTRICT, are we moving into PMS
5 >> modification territory? And if so, is this something we want to do
6 >> just for this?
7 >>
8 >
9 > The new RESTRICT value would need a PMS update, but the "just for this"
10 > part is where it gets good. The only reason I need it is for a reference
11 > implementation of the idea that needs it, to determine if the idea is
12 > any good or not.
13 >
14 > It would be a lot of trouble to go through just to find out that my
15 > proposal is junk.
16 >
17
18 Oh, well, a patch to portage (or an unofficial EAPI for testing) just
19 to evaluate your proposal wouldn't be a big deal I expect, if indeed
20 this is the direction to go.
21
22 I wonder though, per the original idea, wouldn't it make more sense to
23 allow uninstallation to continue and just very verbosely
24 warn/log/document what the package removal didn't do, so that it can
25 be done later by hand as needed?

Attachments

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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Of death and prerm Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>