| 1 |
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:48:48 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > 2. Why do you care about those specific packages in world? Do they |
| 5 |
> > cause a conflict or some other large problem? Personally I'd just |
| 6 |
> > leave them in world |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's the plan. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Most of these servers have been running forever. I've never |
| 11 |
> reformatted a gentoo box. If every once in a while a package gets |
| 12 |
> added to world, it's not a problem today or tomorrow, but it might be |
| 13 |
> in ten years if these boxes are still up -- and I expect some of them |
| 14 |
> to be. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
The way I see it there are actually two issues here, and the thread is |
| 17 |
conflating them. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
One is maintaining what is in world, dealing with bloat if it |
| 20 |
happens, and depcleaning stuffs. All this is the province of portage. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
The other is *why* you put that package there in the first place |
| 23 |
because now you must maintain it. You chose to install a lowish level |
| 24 |
lib for reasons of your own and forgot to document it and portage |
| 25 |
cannot help you. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
So your actual problem is that you relied on an arbitrary behaviour of |
| 28 |
portage from the days when the standard was "whatever portage does |
| 29 |
today" and you are unhappy because for you that is now broken. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But no-one ever promised you that behaviour in a stable API. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives