| 1 |
On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:16:03 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:17:08 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Yes, I can do 'emerge -C nano', but that is brute force & deprecated. |
| 5 |
> > Deprecated? Really? I must have missed that. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> root:565 ~> emerge -C nano |
| 8 |
> * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, |
| 9 |
> use |
| 10 |
> * `emerge -pv --depclean <atom>` to check for reverse dependencies |
| 11 |
> before |
| 12 |
> * removing packages. |
| 13 |
> !!! 'app-editors/nano' (virtual/editor) is part of your system |
| 14 |
> profile. !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system. |
| 15 |
> >>> Waiting 10 seconds before starting... |
| 16 |
> >>> (Control-C to abort)... |
| 17 |
> Press Ctrl-C to Stop in: 10 9^C |
| 18 |
> Exiting on signal 2 |
| 19 |
> root:566 ~> emerge -pv --depclean nano |
| 20 |
> Calculating dependencies... done! |
| 21 |
> app-editors/nano-2.3.2 pulled in by: |
| 22 |
> virtual/editor-0 requires app-editors/nano |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I'ld say that means 'deprecated' as much as anything does, |
| 25 |
> ie "in order to be safer" do it in a different but recommended way. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I wouldn't. If it was deprecated, it would say so. All this message says |
| 28 |
it that using -c is safer than -C, not that -C should not be used. rm -f |
| 29 |
is less safe than rm -i but it is not deprecated. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> >> The ebuild has a long list of possible editors, |
| 32 |
> >> incl Vim Ed Nano, but nothing singling out Nano, |
| 33 |
> > Except that nano is first in the list and portage takes |
| 34 |
> > the first available dependency as satisfying the virtual. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Doesn't Portage check whether any of the others are installed ?! |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Apparently not. As long as the dependency is satisfied, so is portage. |
| 39 |
Extra checking would only slow down portage's dependency resolution even |
| 40 |
more. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> > Unmerge nano and portage will look at the rest of the list, |
| 43 |
> > be satisfied with vim and not try to re-emerge nano. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> The output above mentions "your system profile". |
| 46 |
> My @system contains virtual/editor , but not app-editors/nano . |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
And the output above shows that nano is considered part of @system |
| 49 |
because of the virtual. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
> I'ld call this a bug in Portage. |
| 52 |
> Any other comments before I "damage my system" (output above) ? |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
How could removing nano damage your system? Or do you have something that |
| 55 |
relies on nano to be able to boot? I uninstall nano like this whenever I |
| 56 |
install a Gentoo system, as I use either Joe or Emacs. I suppose that, at |
| 57 |
a pinch, Vim would do instead of a proper editor :P |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the plays |
| 64 |
of W. Shakespeare but all they got was the collected works of Francis |
| 65 |
Bacon |
Archives