| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 01:03:00 +1000 |
| 2 |
Sam Jorna <wraeth@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 13/07/17 00:19, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 5 |
> > It is YOUR comments that are funny, and going in a circular argument |
| 6 |
> > just to be argumentative and bringing nothing useful to the |
| 7 |
> > discussion. Which should be over now that bugs are filed.... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm not trying to be argumentative or antagonistic, I'm trying to |
| 10 |
> understand how your replacement warning differs from what's already |
| 11 |
> available and adds value. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It is similar to the warnings that exist now. To my knowledge, other |
| 14 |
than generic messages that are always there, and a user is likely to |
| 15 |
ignore as noise. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Nothing to my knowledge will tell you that someone was not removed |
| 18 |
because it a was a dependency. Neither -c, nor -C does this. I get -C |
| 19 |
maybe unware, but -c is not. Even when adding -v to -c, it does not |
| 20 |
explicitly say the package was not removed because another needs it. |
| 21 |
That is assumed, and IMHO the user is left wanting as previously stated. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> $ emerge -C apg |
| 24 |
> * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, |
| 25 |
> use |
| 26 |
> * `emerge -pv --depclean <atom>` to check for reverse dependencies |
| 27 |
> before |
| 28 |
> * removing packages. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
That is my point. That message is always there. The chance that it is |
| 31 |
ignored is very high. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Clearly, hence why I was trying to understand what difference your |
| 34 |
> proposal offered. But since we're moving on to serious things now, I |
| 35 |
> guess I /am/ done with this thread. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I was proposing to provided further information to the user unique to |
| 38 |
that situation. Not removing because it is a dependency. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives