| 1 |
I noticed that sets remove support wasn't working any longer, when |
| 2 |
depclean all of a sudden decided most of kde4 was no longer in world! A |
| 3 |
bug search reveals |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291414 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
which references |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=253802#c7 |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
which says that's deliberate. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
OK, both KDE and I knew it wasn't set in stone back when we began using |
| 14 |
it, but now I'm stuck looking for a workable replacement. Here's my |
| 15 |
usage scenario: |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I want to install /some/ of the packages from the sets in the kde-testing |
| 18 |
overlay, but not all of them. Furthermore, as upgrades come and go, I |
| 19 |
want to be notified of any /new/ additions to the sets, so I can choose |
| 20 |
whether I want them or not. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
What I was doing to now was using the sets in kde-testing as a base, with |
| 23 |
a second set configured as a remove set from the first. This way, I got |
| 24 |
the packages I wanted from the current configuration, and as new packages |
| 25 |
were added, they showed up as new (as opposed to upgrade), and I could |
| 26 |
grep the kde-testing sets to see where they were coming from, do an |
| 27 |
esearch or google on the package to see what it was, and decide whether |
| 28 |
to let it install, or add it to my remove set as appropriate. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Now remove sets don't work. What are the options? The most direct is to |
| 31 |
simply create my own set listing everything I want, but that won't |
| 32 |
account for anything added to the sets as they appear upstream over |
| 33 |
time. What to do about that? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I suppose I could create an update script that diffs the new kde-testing |
| 36 |
set against a copy I stashed somewhere, thus showing me the differences, |
| 37 |
and that I could then update my own set and the stashed copy of the |
| 38 |
upstream set accordingly. Is that the best option under the |
| 39 |
circumstances, or does portage provide some other replacement for the |
| 40 |
functionality I just lost in that regard, with the loss of remove set |
| 41 |
functionality? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Anyway, looking forward to when the sets feature is in stable portage, as |
| 44 |
it's sure nice to have... even if it /was/ nicer before this feature |
| 45 |
disappeared... =:^s But it's on the way to better, I know that. =:^) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 49 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 50 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives