| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 01:08 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Walter Dnes |
| 3 |
> did opine thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:38AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon<alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
> wrote: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>>>> Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and |
| 14 |
>>>> depclean handling. It now shows this: |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile. |
| 17 |
>>>> !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system. |
| 18 |
>>>> |
| 19 |
>>> I saw the same thing here yesterday so I added nano& less to my world |
| 20 |
>>> file just so I could move on. |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>> Has anyone ever considered a "virtual/app-editor" ebuild, and letting |
| 23 |
>> vim/joe/nano/whatever satisfy it? |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
> y'know, now that you mention it: |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> $ eix -e editor |
| 28 |
> [I] virtual/editor |
| 29 |
> Available versions: 0{tbz2} |
| 30 |
> Installed versions: 0{tbz2}(12:10:07 10/06/10) |
| 31 |
> Description: Virtual for editor |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> $ genlop -t editor |
| 34 |
> * virtual/editor |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Mon Aug 4 02:31:59 2008>>> virtual/editor-0 |
| 37 |
> merge time: 3 seconds. |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I think the answer is "Yes" |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> :-) |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> the virtual satisfies something like 27 different editors |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Then why didn't they do it that way? Require a editor but let the user |
| 49 |
pick which one and it be part of the system set. Maybe I am missing |
| 50 |
something here. It wouldn't be the first time. ;-) |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Dale |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
:-) :-) |
Archives