1 |
On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 |
2 |
"Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it |
5 |
> happening in the first place is a lot more robust/bulletproof. |
6 |
|
7 |
There is nothing in place to stop you from removing gcc, or other |
8 |
system packages. Adding such to a set, removing them, then expecting |
9 |
the system to prevent you from doing that. Really does not make sense. |
10 |
You are creating the set. You are also ignoring warnings on un-emerge. |
11 |
That is several mistakes. |
12 |
|
13 |
Either way, removing gcc as part of a set, or directly, or any other |
14 |
system package can happen regardless. There is nothing bullet proof. |
15 |
Nothing to stop you either way, except the warning. |
16 |
|
17 |
> Everybody who doesn't run LFS (Linux From Scratch) is "lazy" in that |
18 |
> regard. Figuring out dependancies is the job of a package manager, |
19 |
> not the end-user. |
20 |
|
21 |
Dependencies are really not part of the sets discussion. That came from |
22 |
something you had mentioned about deps remaining after removing a set. |
23 |
|
24 |
> I may be getting old, and my head may be slowly |
25 |
> becoming like that of Captain Picard in STTNG (Star Trek The Next |
26 |
> Generation). I do appreciate being able to decide I want something |
27 |
> installed and telling Portage to "Make it so", and letting it take |
28 |
> care of details. |
29 |
|
30 |
Then do so, but if you start creating sets, and doing bad stuff in that |
31 |
process. Really cannot blame sets. |
32 |
|
33 |
> a) I don't want to have to spend time figuring out if an item is or is |
34 |
> not a deep dependancy of a package I currently have. |
35 |
|
36 |
Packages added to a set are rarely deps of each other, and usually |
37 |
unrelated packages. It depends on the set, and in this case we are |
38 |
talking user created set. Which means you are only adding packages you |
39 |
want to the set. From there portage handles deps like normal. I fail to |
40 |
see the issue. |
41 |
|
42 |
> b) I may install other packages later on which may have items already |
43 |
> in the set as a dependancy. |
44 |
|
45 |
Then maybe you should avoid using sets. If your not going to pay |
46 |
attention to what you put in them. Just to remove. But again if its a |
47 |
dep of another. Assuming your doing things properly and doing a world |
48 |
update after any package removal. Any deps removed would be brought |
49 |
back in. |
50 |
|
51 |
But your missing that you are creating all this yourself. You do not |
52 |
have to create a set. If you do and remove it. Then you should be |
53 |
familiar with the package you are putting in the set, and if it is a |
54 |
dep of other stuff. |
55 |
|
56 |
Its bad administration to just toss something into a set. For that |
57 |
package to become a dep of something else on the system. The package |
58 |
being in the set serves no purpose then. |
59 |
|
60 |
> c) Even if *I* don't change "world", GNOME's ever-growing hard-coded |
61 |
> dependancy list will change. |
62 |
|
63 |
Then seems like you will need to constantly review the packages you put |
64 |
into a set and remove any that are brought in by other things. It seems |
65 |
like for what you are doing sets are not good. For others they maybe, |
66 |
who are doing things differently. |
67 |
|
68 |
> > It is a way to go, but others may want more fine grained control and |
69 |
> > have more awareness of package dependencies, and only add non |
70 |
> > dependent non-system packages to a set. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> Assuming it's not a lot of additional work, what exactly do sets |
73 |
> allow that meta packages don't? |
74 |
|
75 |
If you followed the thread. It allows you to directly remove the |
76 |
packages without having to depclean or remove the packages |
77 |
individually as a list. Also you can rebuild said packages. The |
78 |
rebuilding on demand is likely the biggest feature. |
79 |
|
80 |
You cannot rebuild a meta package on demand. You can rebuild the meta |
81 |
package, but not the packages in the meta package. You would have to |
82 |
list those one by one. Thus using a set is much easier. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |