1 |
On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: |
2 |
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
3 |
> > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager |
4 |
> > out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did |
5 |
> > not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not |
6 |
> > updating the package. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred |
9 |
> > package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will |
10 |
> > stop happening. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and |
13 |
> > nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package |
14 |
> > manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as |
15 |
> > usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one |
16 |
> > it is. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > I don't see a problem. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself |
21 |
> with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it |
22 |
> should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? |
23 |
> (Independently of the @system sets.) |
24 |
|
25 |
What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage |
26 |
could not do that. |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |