1 |
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 13:27:57 -0700 |
2 |
Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On 07/10/2017 04:37 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
5 |
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 19:22:47 -0400 |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > A rule for portage could be; |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > - If the package is not in world and already installed. Do not add |
10 |
> > the package to world. If you are re-emerging a package already |
11 |
> > installed. You do not have to use the -1 option. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > I have polluted so many world files with system packages and/or |
14 |
> > dependencies I re-emerged directly without -1. Those IMHO should |
15 |
> > never have been recorded to that file. They were brought in by |
16 |
> > other things. Only things in my world should be packages merged |
17 |
> > directly, not from profile, set, or a dep. |
18 |
|
19 |
> Portage's fault. If you don't want a package added to a set or world, |
20 |
> you'll need to use the -1 (--oneshot) option. |
21 |
|
22 |
Did you even read above? I clearly state WITHOUT -1 option.... |
23 |
|
24 |
> I added it to my default |
25 |
> emerge options in make.conf for exactly that reason (clean world); |
26 |
|
27 |
The point is people should not have to do such. Or remember to always |
28 |
use -1 when re-emerging a dep, system, world, or set package. |
29 |
|
30 |
> though, I have to be careful and make sure packages I care about are |
31 |
> in a set somewhere or --depclean will wipe'em out. In short, Portage |
32 |
> won't stop you from shooting yourself in the foot. |
33 |
|
34 |
If those package are in your world file portage will not remove on |
35 |
depclean. |
36 |
|
37 |
> If you decide you want to add a package to world without re-merging |
38 |
> it, -n (--noreplace) will do the job. |
39 |
|
40 |
Or you can add it to the world file, or your profile/packages |
41 |
in /etc/portage, etc. There are other places, one does not have to |
42 |
emerge every package then want in world. Just the same it should not |
43 |
add stuff just the same from system, world, sets, or deps of any of |
44 |
those 3. |
45 |
|
46 |
> That said, having helpful messages is a good addition, but needs to be |
47 |
> done in a way that is unambiguous and gives the user a clear solution. |
48 |
|
49 |
So now it must be clear to the user? That is the entire point I am |
50 |
making. The output now is not clear... But in improving such now there |
51 |
is concern over something no one cares about now.... Funny stuff!!! |
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |