[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] Favorite distros
- Subject: [ale] Favorite distros
- From: jknapka at earthlink.net (Joseph A. Knapka)
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:45:29 -0600
Charles Marcus wrote:
> > From: Michael Hirsch [mailto:mhirsch at nubridges.com]
> > Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 4:16 PM
> >> If package A depends on package B, which depends on package
> >> C, then if you remove C, both A and B are broken. It seems
> >> to me that both should be removed. But you seem to be saying
> >> that the dependency-checking should only look one level
> >> deep, so to speak. Why?
> > I don't think that is what he is describing. If A depends on B and C,
> > and nothing else needs B, but D need C, too, then A and B will be
> > removed, but not C.
Erg. So if I say to the machine, "emerge unmerge C", it will
refuse to do so? That can't be what you mean.
What Charles said a minute ago makes sense (where A<---B ==
"Package B will not function without package A"):
If I say, "emerge unmerge B", what should happen?
Clearly A should go, because it won't work without B.
Less clearly, but still desirable IMO, C should go, because
nothing on the system is now using it. However, folks on
a slow link might want C to stick around, because they
might have only uninstalled B in order to install
WhizBangBReplacement (in which case they want A to stay
to, and so shouldn't be using reverse dependencies
And clearly, too, D must stay, because Q won't work
I think I've got it :-)
"I'd rather chew my leg off than maintain Java code, which
sucks, 'cause I have a lot of Java code to maintain and
the leg surgery is starting to get expensive." - Me
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.