| 1 |
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:11:39 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan@××××××××××××××××.za> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
AM> On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 18:29 +0200, Robert Cernansky wrote: |
| 4 |
AM> > |
| 5 |
AM> > Hmm, it can be done with "garbage collector principe". Each |
| 6 |
AM> > package will have counter which increases when some package which |
| 7 |
AM> > depend on |
| 8 |
AM> > it is installed. Decreased, when the package is uninstalled. If |
| 9 |
AM> > counter is |
| 10 |
AM> > zero, "dependency" package can be uninstalled along with package |
| 11 |
AM> > specified |
| 12 |
AM> > for uninstalling. |
| 13 |
AM> |
| 14 |
AM> No, that still doesn't work. When the user unmerges kde-meta, with your |
| 15 |
AM> proposal it will unmerge X11. The next step is that the user emerges |
| 16 |
AM> gnome which first emerges X11 back again. This isn't so bad with a |
| 17 |
AM> binary distro if the packages are on a CD, but on gentoo it's murder. |
| 18 |
AM> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, you are right. I did not consider this practical issue. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
AM> The only sane thing to do is to emerge dependencies when required and |
| 23 |
AM> unmerge only thinks specifically asked for to be unmerged. You can't |
| 24 |
AM> even reliably prompt the user with a dialog that says "The following |
| 25 |
AM> dependencies of the package about to be unmerged are needed by no other |
| 26 |
AM> package. Shall they be unmerged?" because of deep dependencies. |
| 27 |
AM> Reverse constructing a multi-node tree and applying logic to it is no |
| 28 |
AM> joke, hence the wise decision to have portage ignore this amazingly |
| 29 |
AM> efficient bug-injecting process. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Yes, its not so easy, i see now. ;-) Like Bo Andresen wrote --depclean is the |
| 32 |
best way. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Robert |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Robert Cernansky |
| 39 |
E-mail: hslists2@××××××.sk |
| 40 |
Jabber: HS@××××××.sk |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives