1 |
On 24 May 2009, at 21:41, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sun, 24 May 2009 18:22:05 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>>> Not exactly, buildsyspkg does the same as it always did, but @system |
6 |
>>> has changed. This cold have happened at any time as there was |
7 |
>>> never a |
8 |
>>> need for python to be in @system,because it's a dependency of |
9 |
>>> portage. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> That may well be the way it IS, but it certainly is not the way it |
12 |
>> SHOULD BE. The only sane way to do this is: |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> if (pkgmgr=portage) |
15 |
>> python in @system |
16 |
>> else |
17 |
>> python !in system |
18 |
>> end |
19 |
> |
20 |
> That's not particularly sane, because it addresses only one special |
21 |
> case, |
22 |
> others may arise. IMO the sane approach, as I said some posts |
23 |
> ago, is for buildsyspkg to build packages for everything in @system |
24 |
> and |
25 |
> their dependencies. If you can't do "emerge -eK @system", buildsyspkg |
26 |
> has failed to do anything useful. |
27 |
|
28 |
+1 |
29 |
|
30 |
You have saved me replying to Alan's post. |
31 |
|
32 |
One could write a package manager in Perl. As it stands Portage would |
33 |
warn you against uninstalling "Perltage", but not Perl itself, a hard |
34 |
dependency of that package manager. Clearly this should be fixed. |
35 |
|
36 |
Stroller. |