1 |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 14:32:27 -0700 |
2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I understand where you're coming from, I just thought to give a few |
5 |
> tips to make life a bit easier for you since it works out pretty well |
6 |
> for myself. I think your idea has merit, just unsure of where the |
7 |
> functionality goes, since I'm not a Portage developer. |
8 |
|
9 |
I have been using the -1 option myself for some time. I have also moved |
10 |
away from having anything in world file. I have my own profiles and |
11 |
such. Just not committed to my public overlay yet. |
12 |
|
13 |
This is mostly for others. I do what ever I need directly for myself if |
14 |
it really becomes an issue for me. But I appreciate the thought! |
15 |
|
16 |
> I think the hard part of implementing this will be detecting whether a |
17 |
> command-line-given package is (a) in a set/profile/world and (b) part |
18 |
> of a dependency tree (i.e. shouldn't be removed). |
19 |
|
20 |
I do not think it will be that complex. It already does this now for |
21 |
system, world, and set files. It must be looking at files already. |
22 |
Having it look at say /var/lib/world is just another file/location. |
23 |
|
24 |
> -c already traverses the dependency tree. This one message may mean |
25 |
> iterating through the list of candidate packages and comparing them |
26 |
> against a set/profile/world *per package*, unless the vdb/cache makes |
27 |
> this lookup cheap in terms of cycles. The message would be helpful, |
28 |
> though again, eix-test-obsolete might be the right tool to build that |
29 |
> feature into. I'd be interested in following the bug discussion, if |
30 |
> you've already filed it. |
31 |
|
32 |
The looking at say world file is more an issue for -C than -c. -c knows |
33 |
there are deps. Thus all it needs is an additional minimal message. It |
34 |
already says to see deps use -v. It just does not say, why it took no |
35 |
action. But actually now that I looked at -c, it is completely wrong. |
36 |
|
37 |
I should have caught that sooner. -c does not remove a package, it just |
38 |
removes its deps. |
39 |
|
40 |
-c == --depclean. |
41 |
|
42 |
It is not the same as -C, which is remove a package directly. |
43 |
|
44 |
--unmerge (-C) |
45 |
|
46 |
Not even sure why anyone suggested -c. That explains why I use -C and |
47 |
not -c, but I do use --depclean. This whole thread and topic really got |
48 |
sidetracked big time with -c vs -C. |
49 |
|
50 |
-c should never be mentioned. I was about to file a bug when I noticed |
51 |
such. |
52 |
|
53 |
emerge -c gcc, would never remove gcc, only run depclean |
54 |
emerge -C will remove gcc |
55 |
|
56 |
> If you're really interested in the message from -C, it could be done |
57 |
> by checking the argument list for packages in sets or profiles. But |
58 |
> it's going to incur similar overhead that -c has because it |
59 |
> necessarily has to check some sort of list before producing the |
60 |
> message. |
61 |
|
62 |
Yes this is just about -C, and as stated previously. Other stuff |
63 |
already hits files, this is not different really. |
64 |
|
65 |
> I do not think this message belongs in -C output, however; -C is |
66 |
> intentionally meant for operations where you don't care what happens |
67 |
> to the dependency tree |
68 |
|
69 |
Not true, as I have shown, -C will warn on removing system, world, and |
70 |
set packages. |
71 |
|
72 |
-C will NOT worn on dependencies, which it should. Using the world file |
73 |
and others to know if a package is a dep or in one of those files. |
74 |
|
75 |
> Please don't interpret this e-mail as aggressive or dismissive. I'm |
76 |
> simply trying to offer explanation and guidance to help you make this |
77 |
> happen. It's clear that you care about it, so I'm sure there's a way |
78 |
> for this to go forward. |
79 |
|
80 |
I do not, long as it is not insulting which it does not contain |
81 |
anything of the sort. Though the discussion or mention of -c/--depclean |
82 |
is really off topic. That confused and side tracked things. |
83 |
|
84 |
-- |
85 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |