Am 03.08.2011 23:44, schrieb Willie Wong: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> It's sensible really - portage is not the only package manager out >> there and therefore should not be in @system. The user did not put >> portage in world, and did not use -D, so portage is not updating the >> package. >> >> The solution is simple - all users should put their preferred package >> manager into world and what Stroller is seeing will stop happening. >> >> Zac can't force portage into system like he could with less and nano >> and have few or non side-effects. A virtual package manager only says >> that you *have* one, not *which* one. So as usual for Gentoo, the user >> gets to tell the software which one it is. >> >> I don't see a problem. > > Though it is silly IMHO that portage would want to remove itself with > depclean. Could it not be hardcoded into portage that it should try to > keep itself updated and not commit suicide? (Independently of the > @system sets.) > > W
I don't really see an issue here. There are lots of packages whose removal will wreak havok on your system: wget, gcc, python, binutils etc. Some are part of @system and are therefore protected. For others like portage there are alternatives which means that AFAIK they cannot be part of @system. None of these have any protection except that dependencies will usually prevent their removal by emerge --depclean. For portage itself, Albert already pointed out that it ought to be protected from --depclean. Portage doesn't protect you from shooting yourself in the foot with `emerge -C foo`. It just tries not to it by itself when you ask it kindly with `emerge -c foo`. ;) Regards, Florian Philipp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
