On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:21 +0200
"Ivan Voras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, I thought of another problem scenario. The user installs port M, and it
> > brings dependencies D1, D2, and D3. Then the user installs port N which also
> > has port D2 as a dependency.
>
> Port N then won't install D2 as it already exists. The user can
> rollback [N], then rollback [M+D1+D2+D3]. Trying to roll back back
> [M+D1+D2+D3] before [N] will show the user a message about
> dependencies.
Shouldn't you be able to request rollback [M + D1 + D2+ D3 ] , but have the
dependency of {something else not M} on D2 be detected, and therefore D2 *not*
uninstalled?
you'd end up then with M, D1, D3 removed , D2 still installed (as N needs it),
and a message saying 'D2 was not removed due to existing dependencies : N '.
As a matter of fact, i don't really see why we need a transaction system to
have an option to {pkg management of choice} to uninstall {unwanted_pkg} and
all other dependencies ONLY needed by {unwanted_pkg}. Anyway, pkg_cutleaves
does part of it...but it'd be much handier, i think, to handle it @ the
uninstall time.
And since we are just wishing for things, It'd be nice to have an opportunity
to back off from a install/remove after calculating dependencies, such as that
provided by yum (it shows everything it will do and asks for confirmation
before proceeding. )
B
PS: Thanks for all great work + time put into all the ports + base!!
_________________________
{Beto|Norberto|Numard} Meijome
Mind over matter: if you don't mind, it doesn't matter
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may be hot. Slippery when wet.
Reading disclaimers makes you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been
Warned.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
