Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --update behavior

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 04:34 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Michael Orlitzky<michael@××××××××.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/02/2012 04:11 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cocktail
>>>> Neil's suggestion of sets sounds like what you want here. Unfortunately
>>>> it only works smoothly on first emerge (later on you have to dig
>>>> through dep graphs to find the full dep list):
>>>>
>>>> First run emerge -p to find all the packages that will be pulled in,
>>>> and add the whole lot to a set with a clear name that indicates it's
>>>> function. Then emerge that set. As you discover further deps you can
>>>> manually add them to the set
>>>>
>>>> It's quite a lot of extra work and you have to remember to do it, but
>>>> it has the benefit of being somewhat self-documenting, at least in
>>>> terms of having a record of what set pulled a package in initially.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Requires time travel, not a solution!
>>
>>
>> Seriously. Do you want a solution, or do you just want to rant about a
>> change to the behavior of --update?
>>
>
> All I originally wanted to know was if anyone had a real reason to prefer
> the current behavior over the old.

Ah. I must have gotten confused at "So which ones can I remove?
Solutions involving time travel and/or losing customers will be
disqualified."

>
> I've shown that there's a problem with the current behavior; if there are no
> real problems with the old behavior, then it's worth raising the issue.

Ah. Then based on the conversation thus far, it sounds like you'd have
to ask the developer who made the change.

>
> I know how to avoid the problem in the future, but there are plenty of other
> Gentoo users who don't, and who also won't be able to fix today's mistakes a
> year from now.

-- 
:wq