| 1 |
On Sunday 10 September 2006 00:09, Toby Cubitt wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If depclean has listed the packages, I'm fairly sure that means |
| 4 |
> portage couldn't find anything in "system" or "world" that depends on |
| 5 |
> it (or anything that depends on something that depends on it, |
| 6 |
> etc.). So querying for dependencies is, by definition, going to return |
| 7 |
> nothing. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Actually, for some of them equery did find dependencies - so I left them well |
| 10 |
alone. For a few of these it did not, in which case I unmerged them. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> That doesn't necessarily mean the packages can safely be removed (I |
| 13 |
> once borked my system badly by making that assumption). Look at the |
| 14 |
> package descriptions or google them to try to find out what exactly |
| 15 |
> they do before you decide it's safe to remove them. Usually, even if |
| 16 |
> the package *is* required, all that happens is some program will no |
| 17 |
> longer run and you'll need to re-emerge the package. You can then add |
| 18 |
> it to world so that it's not picked up by depclean in the future. In |
| 19 |
> the worst case, you find you've remove something essential and the |
| 20 |
> system no longer even boots. (That's what happened to me, with libcap |
| 21 |
> if I remember right.) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I'll keep an eye out for dependency related breakages and no doubt repost if I |
| 24 |
get lost (it happens rather often lately! ;-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thank you all for your help and guidance. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Mick |
Archives