| 1 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:06:46 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 2020-09-04 08:54, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > py37 will (*) still be installed as it cannot be depcleaned because |
| 7 |
> > of 1. emerge won't fail since deps are satisfied. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > (*) or rather should, but I think the only case that matters is a |
| 11 |
> > valid system state where noone forced uninstall of a needed package |
| 12 |
> > or manually rm'ed some random files |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There's no need to speculate; use pkgcore for a month and come back |
| 16 |
> and tell me how much comfort these hypotheticals were. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
there's no speculation in assuming a consistent set of installed |
| 19 |
packages (consistent as specified in... PMS ;) ); there is, however, |
| 20 |
speculation in the hypothetical error messages when the installed set |
| 21 |
of packages is inconsistent |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> >> or.. |
| 25 |
> >> |
| 26 |
> >> 3b. Some reverse dependency of foo-1.2.3 gets python-3.8 support. |
| 27 |
> >> 4b. A user tries to install that revdep, but the PM sees that |
| 28 |
> >> the latest version of foo is already installed, and it (the |
| 29 |
> >> installed version) doesn't support python-3.8. Mysterious |
| 30 |
> >> error messages and manual intervention ensue. |
| 31 |
> > |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > precisely the case I wrote above: unsatisfied dep -> pull ebuild. |
| 34 |
> > non-issue too. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> It's easy to say "well this is not an issue because it can be solved |
| 37 |
> by <thing no package manager does and is not part of the PMS>..." |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
are you kidding ? are you seriously suggesting adding to PMS that PM |
| 40 |
needs to pull ebuilds to install packages ? good luck with that ;) |
Archives