| 1 |
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:20:54AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Ah... I see, I was trying to figure out what they meant by deprecated |
| 3 |
> > and how they determined it. It seems that the only thing common to |
| 4 |
> > those packages is that their ebuilds are no-longer in the tree. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Each one of those packages you list has more up to date versions available in |
| 7 |
> the tree. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Precisely. But the exact version that is installed is no longer in |
| 10 |
the tree. Seeing that I don't recall the portage system introducing a |
| 11 |
deprecated flag (short of the removal notice and package.mask), I was |
| 12 |
curious how eclean determined that those packages are deprecated. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
And also seeing that for many of the ones I listed, neither |
| 15 |
emerge --update --deep world |
| 16 |
nor |
| 17 |
emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y world |
| 18 |
suggest their updates, in my case they are probably just cruft that |
| 19 |
ought to go away once the system is brought up to date and I can run |
| 20 |
depclean. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But am I wrong in my impression that with bdeps, the common thing to |
| 23 |
do is to update them only when absolutely necessary? So in this case |
| 24 |
the deprecation warning might introduce unnecessary cycles spent on |
| 25 |
building those packages (among those who don't want to track down the |
| 26 |
origins of those packages and just want the block of text to go away). |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
W |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Willie W. Wong wwong@××××××××××××××.edu |
| 33 |
Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire |
| 34 |
et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton |
Archives