Idézés Xavier <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:49:13PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> > > Why? Isn't HoldPkg already equivalent to RemoveIgnorePkg? This sounds
> > > unnecessary complication to me.
> > > However, the scope of HoldPkg might be extended for covering Rc and Rs
> > > as you suggested.
> > >
> > Ehh, indeed;-) I totally misinterpreted HoldPkg, but now I've read our
> > If HoldPkg == RemoveIgnorePkg, then why we need user confirmation for
> > them if he listed the package in the "command line" (package was added by
> > remove_addtarget)? This is not done with IgnorePkg neither. So they are
> > "symmetric" in this way.
> > RemoveIgnorePkg (and so Holdpkg) has real meaning in case of -Rc and -Rs
> > (imho), when pacman does some auto-magic stuffs; not when I do pacman -R
> > holdpkg, because then I really want to remove holdpkg.
> Indeed, that was my opinion for ignorepkg, and by symmetry, for holdpkg
> With the difference than removing is more dangerous :P And that IgnorePkg is
> usually set by the user, while HoldPkg is set by default to pacman and
> So I don't know..
Exactly. Thus holdpkg cannot be set from command-line neither. So apart from the
auto-generated holdpkgs for "dangerous" removals [but come on, who wants to
remove glibc or pacman with -R ?!] the current HoldPkg is pointless imho.
SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
pacman-dev mailing list