| 1 |
On Wednesday 03 February 2010 20:07:33 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:08 -0600, Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> In my opinion, the old portage was good, the new one is even better. |
| 5 |
> >> Now if the next version will prevent a person from borking their |
| 6 |
> >> system, that would be heaven. lol You know, unmerge python and see |
| 7 |
> >> what happens. Yes, you can still unmerge python, even the only version |
| 8 |
> >> you have left, and portage not say a darn thing. It kills the heck out |
| 9 |
> >> of portage tho. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Portage gives you a big red warning if you try to do this, but it |
| 12 |
> > doesn't, and shouldn't, try to stop you. What if you really want to |
| 13 |
> > remove Python? Postage is not the only package manager, so python is not |
| 14 |
> > compulsory. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It doesn't here. Someone else did the same thing a few weeks ago with |
| 17 |
> no warning or didn't mention seeing one at least. I've read where |
| 18 |
> others have done this too. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It just seems to me that portage should keep it so it can work. It |
| 21 |
> needs python to do that. Since portage is the package manager for |
| 22 |
> Gentoo, portage is the one that should be protected. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Portage is not the package manager for Gentoo. It is *A* package manager for |
| 26 |
Gentoo. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Trying to assign it some special exalted status will always get you in trouble |
| 29 |
when trying to understand why things are the way they are. The only special |
| 30 |
thing about portage is that it carries officially supported status. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives