| 1 |
On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
> > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager |
| 5 |
> > > out there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did |
| 6 |
> > > not put portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not |
| 7 |
> > > updating the package. |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred |
| 10 |
> > > package manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will |
| 11 |
> > > stop happening. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and |
| 14 |
> > > nano and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package |
| 15 |
> > > manager only says that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as |
| 16 |
> > > usual for Gentoo, the user gets to tell the software which one |
| 17 |
> > > it is. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > I don't see a problem. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself |
| 22 |
> > with depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it |
| 23 |
> > should try to keep itself updated and not commit suicide? |
| 24 |
> > (Independently of the @system sets.) |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage |
| 27 |
> could not do that. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
It would be possible by: |
| 30 |
1) emerge paludiis |
| 31 |
2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact |
| 32 |
syntax) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at least 1 |
| 35 |
package manager installed. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Joost |
Archives