1 |
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:13:00 -0600, Dale wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> > That may have been the case some time ago, but depclean is much safer |
4 |
> > now. Notice that the warning at the start of its output has |
5 |
> > disappeared now? |
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
> That is true but let's say a person updates python but forgets or |
9 |
> doesn't know, to run python-updater, will --depclean know that? |
10 |
|
11 |
If packages depnd on the older version of python, depclean won't remove |
12 |
them. If it's just a matter of depending on the correct modules, |
13 |
python-updater will fix that after the older python has been removed. |
14 |
|
15 |
> What if emerge doesn't work and they don't have buildpkg of some sort in |
16 |
> make.conf? |
17 |
|
18 |
Why would emerge stop itself working? |
19 |
|
20 |
> I agree that --depclean is a LOT better but there are still situations |
21 |
> where it can mess up a system. It is best to be careful and really |
22 |
> look at that list before letting it remove a package. Basically, don't |
23 |
> type it in and walk off to let it do whatever it wants. |
24 |
|
25 |
While I always run it with --pretend first, that's because I'm more |
26 |
curious than paranoid. What are these situations in which it can really |
27 |
mess up a system and are they situations that any sensible user would put |
28 |
themselves in? |
29 |
|
30 |
> I also seem to remember that big warning when --depclean runs. I think |
31 |
> that may still be there for a reason. ;-) |
32 |
|
33 |
See above, that warning has been gone for some time. The preamble now |
34 |
contains this indication that depclean is a lot more cautious. |
35 |
|
36 |
* As a safety measure, depclean will not remove any packages |
37 |
* unless *all* required dependencies have been resolved. As a |
38 |
* consequence, it is often necessary to run `emerge --update |
39 |
* --newuse --deep @system @world` prior to depclean. |
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Neil Bothwick |
44 |
|
45 |
If your VCR still flashes 12:00 - then Linux is not for you. |