| 1 |
On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:05:56 +0100 |
| 2 |
Hinnerk van Bruinehsen <h.v.bruinehsen@×××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> Really, the proposal to 'fix --update' doesn't address really |
| 5 |
> >> knowing what your system is running and why. Get to the root of |
| 6 |
> >> that and the --update thing becomes the non-issue that many of us |
| 7 |
> >> think it is. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > This would be a suggestion to travel back in time and document |
| 11 |
> > something that I have no way of knowing now. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> You could create your own overlay with "meta"-ebuilds, e. g. |
| 14 |
> system-maintenance, customer1, customer2. |
| 15 |
> Inside the ebuilds you define depends on the packages the customer |
| 16 |
> wants. Doing so you could wipe everything except the "meta"-ebuilds |
| 17 |
> from world. When a customer quits you can unmerge his or her |
| 18 |
> "meta"-ebuild and depclean. |
| 19 |
> If you add everything needed to the respective "meta"-ebuild, you'll |
| 20 |
> always be on the safe side. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sets do exactly the same thing simply without all the added verbiage of |
| 24 |
an ebuild. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The *only* thing required to bring about the solution you describe is |
| 27 |
the information in the *DEPEND of the meta-ebuild, and that is all that |
| 28 |
is in a set. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Alan McKinnnon |
| 34 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives