| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 17:40:19 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >> Just be careful about uninstalling sets. For whatever reason portage |
| 4 |
> >> doesn't manage dependencies when you do this. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Do you mean that depclean doesn't remove them? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The opposite. If you uninstall a set, portage will remove everything |
| 10 |
> in the set even if something else that is installed still needs it. |
| 11 |
> Removing a package with --depclean doesn't have this problem. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That's worth bearing in mind. It sounds like it would be safer to emerge |
| 14 |
--deselect the set and then depclean instead. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> There is no reason this couldn't be fixed - it is just something to |
| 17 |
> watch out for. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Another option to consider is creating your own overlay with some |
| 20 |
> meta-packages in it. Then when you do a new install the first thing |
| 21 |
> you do is pull in that overlay and you get those meta-packages along |
| 22 |
> with whatever else you want to override. Come to think of it, I might |
| 23 |
> just go do that... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That's a good idea, but creating, and modifying, sets is just so easy! |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Frog philosophy: Time's fun when you're having flies. |
Archives