On Thursday, August 04, 2011 12:10:25 AM Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Wed 03 August 2011 17:44:08 Willie Wong did opine thusly: > > 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.) > > What about replacing portage with paludis? In your scenario, portage > could not do that.
It would be possible by: 1) emerge paludiis 2) paludis - delete portage (I don't know Paludis, so not sure of the exact syntax) This would then be a safer way of doing things as you'd always have at least 1 package manager installed. -- Joost
