| 1 |
On 7/5/06, Daniel Iliev <danny@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Why not just merge the |
| 3 |
> > top-level package, and if you don't like it, unmerge and use |
| 4 |
> > --depclean --pretend to figure out what can safely be removed? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Because if I decide to keep it, all dependencies it pulls-in don't get |
| 8 |
> updated until the top-level package starts depending on a different |
| 9 |
> version of those packages. Actually this is the main reason I started |
| 10 |
> this practice. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Not if you use --deep on your updates. Then dependancies are also |
| 13 |
considered for updates. Some people here will tell you that --deep is |
| 14 |
troublesome, but I am not one of them, and it seems like what you want |
| 15 |
to do. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> "emerge --depclean" yells a big warning that it is broken. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
There are 2 "problems" with --depclean: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1. it takes your current use flags into account, rather than those |
| 22 |
that were in effect at the time a package was merged. So if you |
| 23 |
modify USE flags, it can report things can be removed, when in reality |
| 24 |
that would break something. But if you do an "emerge -DNvp world", |
| 25 |
and it doesn't report anything needing to be [re]merged, then this |
| 26 |
doesn't apply. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
2. it can remove packages that you really do want. As an example, |
| 29 |
let's say you are programming something that uses the "boost" c++ |
| 30 |
library. If you were to remove everything in portage that depended on |
| 31 |
boost, and it wasn't in your world file, then depclean would want to |
| 32 |
remove it. The solution here is to add boost to your world file, |
| 33 |
since you want that no matter what else is installed. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
IMO neither of the above 'problems' are particularly serious, or a |
| 36 |
good reason to add every dependancy to world. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > And I don't necessarily believe that having everything in world |
| 39 |
> > results in a significantly faster scan time than having only top-level |
| 40 |
> > packages there. I would like to see actual proof of this assertion. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> No, no! I'm saying just the opposite - the more packages you have |
| 43 |
> recorded in the world list, the slower scanning you get. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Yeah, well, I don't necessarily believe the reverse either! :-) |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Regards, |
| 48 |
-Richard |
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives