| 1 |
Mike Edenfield wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>>> How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of |
| 6 |
>>>> @system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either |
| 7 |
>>>> way, you risk breaking the system. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Aren't all deps of packages in @system themselves already in @system? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> No, otherwise portage would complain if you tried to unmerge python. |
| 12 |
>> Anyway, deps are USE-dependent. Try USE="X" emerge @system on a headless |
| 13 |
>> server to see jut how much @system can pull in. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Portage isn't in @system, either. "virtual/portage" is, but paludis |
| 16 |
> also provides that. Python isn't a dependency of any other system |
| 17 |
> package (except "file", but that's only enabled by the USE flag). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It appears that portage's refusal to unmerge itself is hard-coded into |
| 20 |
> portage; that reinforces my belief that portage should be responsible |
| 21 |
> for refusing to unmerge it's own dependencies. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> --Mike |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Just picking a random post here. The devs know this. It has been |
| 27 |
pointed out on -dev and on b.g.o. as well. They won't do anything to |
| 28 |
correct this. It just seems to me that portage shouldn't break itself. |
| 29 |
Since there are other package managers, they should not be able to break |
| 30 |
themselves either. I think maybe it should be the package manager |
| 31 |
itself that prevents this. That way it fixes it for everyone. I'm just |
| 32 |
not sure this is doable. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The biggest point is, the devs know but are not interested in fixing |
| 35 |
it. Their response is to shut up and get over it, not in those words |
| 36 |
but still. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Dale |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
:-) :-) |
Archives