| 1 |
On 25.1.2010 13.02, Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 01/25/2010 04:28 AM, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Well put. I would agree that a simple warning should be given before |
| 5 |
>>> removing a system package or a package that system must have, especially |
| 6 |
>>> portage. |
| 7 |
>>> Maybe what portage needs is a reverse -n feature. Instead of adding |
| 8 |
>>> something to the world file, it removes a unwanted package from the |
| 9 |
>>> world file and then the user could use --depclean to remove that package |
| 10 |
>>> and its no longer needed friends. I assume this is doable. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> You can already use --depclean for this. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Regards, |
| 16 |
>> Petteri |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So there is already a option that is the reverse of -n ? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Dale |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> :-) :-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You would first have to define the reverse to avoid misunderstanding. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
--noreplace (-n) |
| 29 |
Skips the packages specified on the command-line that |
| 30 |
have already been installed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Reverse: Install packages that are not already installed |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
- This is what Portage does by default |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Reverse: Skips packages that are not installed |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
- Makes no sense with installation actions. Is this what you mean? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
pena betelgeuse # emerge --depclean foobar |
| 41 |
>>> No packages selected for removal by depclean |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Regards, |
| 44 |
Petteri |
Archives