Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Difference between --update and --emptytree?
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 14:52:14
Message-Id: CAEH5T2P=Z0SLcAAp0KGQwo-vUKPP7B3-BzMm9Bv47jhFRieRcw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Difference between --update and --emptytree? by Walter Dnes
1 On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@××××××××.org> wrote:
2 >> What do you mean by sane depclean? Are there any problems with
3 >> --depclean that I am not aware of?
4 >
5 > emerge -p --depclean
6 >
7 > generates dire warnings. I keep a previous version of the kernel
8 > (gentoo-sources) as a fallback, and --depclean wants to remove that,
9 > which I want to keep.
10
11 Quoted below is a solution that was posted to this list a few years
12 ago, I use it for exactly that situation: to prevent kernels from ever
13 getting depcleaned.
14
15 On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Mike Kazantsev <mk.fraggod@×××××.com> wrote:
16 >> So, my question: Is there a way to tell depclean to never remove *any*
17 >> version of gentoo-sources?
18 >
19 > That's where portage-2.2 sets find another use.
20 > Just add following set to /usr/share/portage/config/sets.conf:
21 >
22 > [kernels]
23 > class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet
24 > world-candidate = False
25 > files = /usr/src
26 >
27 > And append "@kernels" line to /var/lib/portage/world_sets
28 > Now any installed (even with -1) kernel should be safe from ravenous
29 > depclean.
30
31 Hope that helps!