On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:05:56 +0100 Hinnerk van Bruinehsen <h.v.bruineh...@fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >> Really, the proposal to 'fix --update' doesn't address really > >> knowing what your system is running and why. Get to the root of > >> that and the --update thing becomes the non-issue that many of us > >> think it is. > >> > > > > This would be a suggestion to travel back in time and document > > something that I have no way of knowing now. > > > You could create your own overlay with "meta"-ebuilds, e. g. > system-maintenance, customer1, customer2. > Inside the ebuilds you define depends on the packages the customer > wants. Doing so you could wipe everything except the "meta"-ebuilds > from world. When a customer quits you can unmerge his or her > "meta"-ebuild and depclean. > If you add everything needed to the respective "meta"-ebuild, you'll > always be on the safe side. Sets do exactly the same thing simply without all the added verbiage of an ebuild. The *only* thing required to bring about the solution you describe is the information in the *DEPEND of the meta-ebuild, and that is all that is in a set. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
