| 1 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 |
| 2 |
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 |
| 5 |
> "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it |
| 8 |
> > happening in the first place is a lot more robust/bulletproof. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There is nothing in place to stop you from removing gcc, or other |
| 11 |
> system packages. Adding such to a set, removing them, then expecting |
| 12 |
> the system to prevent you from doing that. Really does not make sense. |
| 13 |
> You are creating the set. You are also ignoring warnings on un-emerge. |
| 14 |
> That is several mistakes. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Either way, removing gcc as part of a set, or directly, or any other |
| 17 |
> system package can happen regardless. There is nothing bullet proof. |
| 18 |
> Nothing to stop you either way, except the warning. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Speaking of removing packages. If you remove a package that is a dep of |
| 21 |
another, say a virtual or meta ebuild. You do not get ANY warnings. You |
| 22 |
will just break that virtual or meta ebuild. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
IF that same package was in a set. If you remove any package that is |
| 25 |
part of a set. You will get a warning. If you add the set to your |
| 26 |
system sets. It will say your removing a package part of a set. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in from |
| 29 |
another. If you are removing any dependency of another package. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives