On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:


How about a portage feature request?

The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf file
which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @system.

Without the setting, python does not get included in @system.


Since the system package set is package manageragnostic, perhaps that's
the wrong place to deal with dependencies for portage or whatever?


The package manager itself should know enough to keep itself functional.
It just seems odd that portage lets you use portage commands to break
portage. If I wrote a package manager in C# (as a ridiculous example) I
would probably make it smart enough not to let you remove mono.


--K

On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:


How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.


Aren't all deps of packages in @system themselves already in @system?


No, otherwise portage would complain if you tried to unmerge python.
Anyway, deps are USE-dependent. Try USE="X" emerge @system on a headless
server to see jut how much @system can pull in.


Portage isn't in @system, either. "virtual/portage" is, but paludis
also provides that. Python isn't a dependency of any other system
package (except "file", but that's only enabled by the USE flag).


It appears that portage's refusal to unmerge itself is hard-coded into
portage; that reinforces my belief that portage should be responsible
for refusing to unmerge it's own dependencies.


--Mike

Mike Edenfield wrote:

On 2/4/2010 10:43 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:14:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:


How about giving the same warning when unmerging a dependency of
@system as you do when unmerging a package directly in there. Either
way, you risk breaking the system.


Aren't all deps of packages in @system themselves already in @system?


No, otherwise portage would complain if you tried to unmerge python.
Anyway, deps are USE-dependent. Try USE="X" emerge @system on a headless
server to see jut how much @system can pull in.


Portage isn't in @system, either. "virtual/portage" is, but paludis
also provides that. Python isn't a dependency of any other system
package (except "file", but that's only enabled by the USE flag).


It appears that portage's refusal to unmerge itself is hard-coded into
portage; that reinforces my belief that portage should be responsible
for refusing to unmerge it's own dependencies.


--Mike



Just picking a random post here. The devs know this. It has been
pointed out on -dev and on b.g.o. as well. They won't do anything to
correct this. It just seems to me that portage shouldn't break itself.
Since there are other package managers, they should not be able to break
themselves either. I think maybe it should be the package manager
itself that prevents this. That way it fixes it for everyone. I'm just
not sure this is doable.


The biggest point is, the devs know but are not interested in fixing
it. Their response is to shut up and get over it, not in those words
but still.


Dale

:-) :-)

On Thursday 04 February 2010 17:54:06 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 6:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > How about a portage feature request?
> >
> > The contents of @system can have dependencies. Put a setting in a conf
> > file which means the system uses portage, therefore python is in @system.
> >
> > Without the setting, python does not get included in @system.
>
> Since the system package set is package manageragnostic, perhaps that's
> the wrong place to deal with dependencies for portage or whatever?
>
> The package manager itself should know enough to keep itself functional.
> It just seems odd that portage lets you use portage commands to break
> portage. If I wrote a package manager in C# (as a ridiculous example) I
> would probably make it smart enough not to let you remove mono.

Well, portage IS smart enough to not let you remove the toolchain or the C
library.

All of which is moot of course if the bloody compiler can't be launched

--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

On 02/04/2010 01:29 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:

...Gentoo now supports multiple package
managers, so portage is not required either.


I seem to be falling behind. What other package managers does gentoo support?

On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 03:52:15PM -0800, walt wrote:
> On 02/04/2010 01:29 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > ...Gentoo now supports multiple package
> > managers, so portage is not required either.
>
> I seem to be falling behind. What other package managers does gentoo support?

There are two other package managers that can be used on gentoo
systems that I know of. pkgcore and paludis.

However, they are supported by their developers, and, the last time I
looked, gentoo's documentation still only supports portage.

In that sense, portage is still gentoo's _official_ package manager,
but there are alternatives if you don't want to use portage. So,
python actually is not required if you use paludis. I believe pkgcore,
however, requires it.

William