> Hi, > > (no need to cc: my, I'm still subscribed to the PTS :) > > On Samstag, 18. September 2010, Thomas Lange wrote: > > What do you expect instead? > > That the package is removed. > > The logic being: as "install" is the default action, "remove" should have a > higher "priority" and be whats happens. > > > For me this is a not easy to solve situation. Both actions can be > > interpreted as the desired, but software can't decide this on the > > information you've specified. > > An additional problem is, that install_packages does not take the > > order of classes into account, which worked so far for everybody. > > That would still not be needed. Just "if a package is both listed to be > installed and removed, remove it". > > The reason is that I have quite a few classes which have some exceptions, > like > a class REALHW for systems running on real hardware. Usually those systems > needs smartmontools, but some don't as they dont have discs. >
I do have such situations as well, and do resolve them as follows: otherclass: PACKAGES install smartmontools REALHW PACKAGES install smartmontools- That seems to work fine, i.e., X- dominates X, although I couldn't really figure out from the code of install_packages why this works the way it does :-) But if I remember it correctly, that was implemented around the first FAI workshop (and it is a very useful feature indeed :-) - hmm, does that contradict my previous post?). Best, Michael
pgpH5ruCFqf6g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
