| 1 |
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 23:10 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 17:49:50 -0500 Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> | Yeah that's what we want, We intend to create tools that leave systems |
| 4 |
> | broken. You want to be the first tester? Please take your spin of |
| 5 |
> | things off of this and look at it for what it is. Your not going to |
| 6 |
> | use a feature for something unless it's suited for the job at hand. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> So why not create a better feature? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
What the hell are you talking about? No tools have even been |
| 11 |
created yet. Nobody builds tools before the framework is in place. The |
| 12 |
ability to make use of RRDEPEND as I've pointed out by verify-rdepend |
| 13 |
and revdep-rebuild could be pretty much immediate. The ability to |
| 14 |
control what level of depends a user wants in his/her depgraph is up to |
| 15 |
the user. The way I envision it you could just as easliy do |
| 16 |
ROOT=/dev/shm/minimal emerge -KO --deps="RDEPEND:DEPEND:PDEPEND" pkgfoo |
| 17 |
To yield the same results as portage by default. In general I'd |
| 18 |
suggest that you not attempt to make use of features that don't suit |
| 19 |
your needs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives