On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:43:11 -0400 "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt...@o-sinc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jul 2017 21:37:11 -0400 > "Walter Dnes" <waltd...@waltdnes.org> wrote: > > > > "Fat-Finger" does happen once in while. Removing the risk of it > > happening in the first place is a lot more robust/bulletproof. > > There is nothing in place to stop you from removing gcc, or other > system packages. Adding such to a set, removing them, then expecting > the system to prevent you from doing that. Really does not make sense. > You are creating the set. You are also ignoring warnings on un-emerge. > That is several mistakes. > > Either way, removing gcc as part of a set, or directly, or any other > system package can happen regardless. There is nothing bullet proof. > Nothing to stop you either way, except the warning. Speaking of removing packages. If you remove a package that is a dep of another, say a virtual or meta ebuild. You do not get ANY warnings. You will just break that virtual or meta ebuild. IF that same package was in a set. If you remove any package that is part of a set. You will get a warning. If you add the set to your system sets. It will say your removing a package part of a set. I think portage should also warn on removing packages that came in from another. If you are removing any dependency of another package. -- William L. Thomson Jr.
pgpjEI0mpc_KR.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
