Archives
Archives
| From: | Harry Putnam <reader@×××××××.com> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-user@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | [gentoo-user] Re: Is equery depends still viable | ||
| Date: | Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:43:36 | ||
| Message-Id: | 87abc4mupp.fsf@newsguy.com | ||
| In Reply to: | Re: [gentoo-user] Is equery depends still viable by Alan McKinnon |
||
| 1 | Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> writes: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > On Wednesday 12 November 2008 22:04:52 Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 4 | >> With recent changes in portage in the last few mnths, is equery in |
| 5 | >> general and `equery depends' in particular still reliable? |
| 6 | > |
| 7 | > I use it fairly often still, but do notice I get a lot of null |
| 8 | > output. So I no longer trust it fully. At least it doesn't give |
| 9 | > false positives - what's in the putput really is a valid depend. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | Do you know off hand if there are any alternatives? |
| Subject | Author |
|---|---|
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is equery depends still viable | Daniel Pielmeier <daniel.pielmeier@××××××××××.com> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is equery depends still viable | Iain Buchanan <iaindb@××××××××××××.au> |
| Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is equery depends still viable | Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> |