| 1 |
Mark Knecht wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Dale<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> <SNIP> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> I mentioned this on -dev once when this topic came up. Thing is, portage is |
| 7 |
>> not the only package manager being used. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> That's an important point. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
>> Personally I think portage should |
| 13 |
>> be the official package manager and if you chose to use something else, you |
| 14 |
>> should know what not to do to the system. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
> Unofficially I think it is! ;-) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Going by a few folks on -dev, I sometimes wonder if portage even |
| 20 |
exists. Sort of making a mountain out of a mole hill there. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>> Portage requires python but I |
| 25 |
>> think one of the other package managers uses C or something. Remove C on my |
| 26 |
>> rig, no big deal as far as being able to boot and re-emerge a package. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> Careful. Can you really emerge gcc without at least one version of gcc |
| 29 |
> on the system? I didn't think so unless you've got access to a binary |
| 30 |
> somewhere, such as the install tarball or something like that. Even |
| 31 |
> that could be a problem. I did some cleanup a few years ago that |
| 32 |
> removed an old version of gcc and found I couldn't build anything |
| 33 |
> anymore. Embarrassing! |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Most likely not but you can't emerge anything without python either. |
| 37 |
Yet some have emerge -C python a few times. I read where one even |
| 38 |
removed portage. I'm not sure how a person can think portage will work |
| 39 |
if you remove it. o_O |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
>> Do |
| 44 |
>> it on a system with some other package manager and you are in a mess. Point |
| 45 |
>> being, it's sort of hard for them to list them since it depends on what |
| 46 |
>> package manager you are using. |
| 47 |
>> |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
> True, and a more experienced user can use equery, among other tools, |
| 50 |
> to determine what dependencies a package has. Problem was my previous |
| 51 |
> answer didn't mention that. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Ahhh, but equery isn't always right either. That has been shown on |
| 55 |
this list before. It's a good tool but I wouldn't want to put my life |
| 56 |
in its hands. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
>> There are some packages I installed and still don't know much about. lol |
| 60 |
>> Sort of funny in a way. Most of them "just work" so we don't need to know |
| 61 |
>> much about them. |
| 62 |
>> |
| 63 |
> Actually, for me it's _most_ packages I know NOTHING about. This |
| 64 |
> machine has XFCE, Gnome and KDE. It has only 38 packages in the world |
| 65 |
> file and yet emerge -e @world would build 970 packages. That's a LOT |
| 66 |
> of unknown stuff for a user type like me to know anything about! (Or |
| 67 |
> honestly, I probably know _NOTHING_ at all about at least 900 of those |
| 68 |
> packages...) |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> Cheers, |
| 71 |
> Mark |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
I got more in my world file but you have more packages. Sort of odd in |
| 76 |
a way. |
| 77 |
|
| 78 |
Packages installed: 945 |
| 79 |
Packages in world: 76 |
| 80 |
Packages in system: 50 |
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
Dale |
| 83 |
|
| 84 |
:-) :-) |
Archives