Re: [gentoo-user] gcc problems after dep -d

[Hans de Hartog]

Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:

> [SNIP]
>
> Ugh..! You've got this completely wrong. As of >=portage-2.1.1
> `emerge --depclean` is quite safe (yet you still need to use --ask
> or --pretend as with any other emerge operation!) and it has always taken the
> use flags into account. I've never said anything about the reliability of
> `dep -d` (as I've never tried it and don't plan to try it either) and I think
> your experience goes to show that it is far from as safe as
> `emerge --depclean`. I'm pretty sure that `emerge --depclean` would never
> remove gcc...
>
> `equery depends` is what I've said doesn't take your use flags into account
> (and it doesn't). This means that if `equery depends` says foo doesn't need
> bar then foo doesn't need bar. But if it says foo needs bar then there is the
> possibility that due to the state of some use flag foo doesn't need bar on
> your system... That is entirely unrelated to the reliability of
> `emerge --depclean`. This only relates to querying for reverse dependencies
> with equery.
>
> And for querying for reverse dependencies `dep -L` is quite reliable. As is
> pquery from pkgcore and adjutrix from paludis. That says nothing about the
> reliability of `dep -d`, `dep -w` or `dep -s` etc. I don't know if either of
> those other options for dep are reliable or not (and quite frankly I don't
> care as I don't need them). IMO `emerge --depclean` is doing and excellent
> job!
>

Thank you very much for your clear explanation! I learned a lot
from it. And my system is compiling again :-)

-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list