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? |