Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Bob Phan <bob@××××××××××××××××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] portage revisited
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:01:06
Message-Id: Pine.LNX.4.21.0203151347130.26252-100000@lucifer.evil-core.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] portage revisited by Zach Forrest
1 On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Zach Forrest wrote:
2
3 > The attached files should make this a little safer. I changed the grep
4 > commands a little, so as only to filter the exact packages that can have
5 > more than one version installed (e.g. "grep -v db" filters out more than
6 > just sys-libs/db). The script first runs the command with the
7 > "--pretend" flag, then asks for confirmation (after displaying the
8 > output of the emerge command), and finally proceeds (if that is your
9 > wish). Hope it helps.
10 >
11 > Zach
12 I like it, it's really slick. :)
13
14 The only problem I foresee, is that the list of packages is hardcoded.
15 I think the only real way to get _real_ safe unmerging is for portage
16 to treat major version numbers as separate packages or handle them in
17 some special way. I believe I heard word that dependancy checking will
18 be done before an unmerge in the upcoming portage, so maybe that will
19 solve the issue.
20
21 Anyway, thanks, it's great.
22
23 --
24 /*
25 * Bob Phan <bob@××××××××××××××××.net,rphan@××××.com>
26 * Computational Chemistry Informatics
27 * Neurogen Corporation
28 * (203)488-8201 x4645
29 *
30 * To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
31 */

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-user] portage revisited Zach Forrest <zach@××××××××××××××.ca>