| 1 |
Kent Fredric posted on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 06:36:34 +1300 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 07:50:38 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Wow. How'd you ever get a backlog of 400 packages in your depclean |
| 7 |
>> list, |
| 8 |
>> including critical ones you know you want to keep? These days portage |
| 9 |
>> even strongly suggests running depclean after an --update @world, in |
| 10 |
>> part to avoid such huge and confusing backlogs when it is run. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I maintain perl ... so ... that can happen within a week *easily*, |
| 13 |
> depending what I test-install. :) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> On my chroot, I had a 1900 package depclean the other day that took 2 |
| 16 |
> hours to run. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And yes, this was actually due to me going "oh, right, this box is going |
| 19 |
> to need to upgrade Perl soon, I should depclean *before* I sync to make |
| 20 |
> my life easier". |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Welp. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Perl maintainer... after seeing the number of new packages, often 2X due |
| 25 |
to virtuals as well, that the recent perl upgrade brought me... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Understood, now. =8^0 |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Tho a 1900-package-depclean... let's just say I'm glad you're doing it, |
| 30 |
not me, because I'm not sure /what/ I'd do with that, only that I'd |
| 31 |
probably not want to /touch/ anything sysadmin related for probably a |
| 32 |
month, after that! |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I can also imagine doing something drastic like hourly depcleans, if |
| 35 |
that's what it too, too, after dealing with a 1900-pkg-depclean! Yikes! |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 39 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 40 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives