Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
depclean handling. It now shows this:
!!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile.
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
depclean handling. It now shows this:
!!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
app-editors/nano
selected: 2.3.1
protected: none
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:10:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system
> profile. !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your
> system.
> !!! 'sys-apps/less' is part of your system
> profile. !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your
> system.
> Anyone else seeing
Apparently, though unproven, at 12:54 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Neil Bothwick
did opine thusly:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:10:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system
> > profile. !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your
> > system.
> >
> > !!! 'sys-apps/less'
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 11:10:25AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> sys-apps/less
> selected: 443
>protected: none
> omitted: none
>
>
> Changelog doesn't say much about this. I have nano, vim, more and less
> installed and vim is in world. I really don't feel like adding the oth
* Alan McKinnon [110607 04:42]:
> Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
> depclean handling. It now shows this:
>
> !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile.
>
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
> depclean handling. It now shows this:
>
> !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile.
> !!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your system.
>
I saw the same thin
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:36 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Alan McKinnon
did opine thusly:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 12:54 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Neil
> Bothwick
>
> did opine thusly:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:10:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part o
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> #370295
>
> Zac responded (comment #21) to my post in that bug with quite a well-reasoned
> rationale. It makes interesting reading.
It was a good response.
One question left hanging for me goes like this:
I understand nano is a choice
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Mark Knecht did
opine thusly:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Alan McKinnon
> wrote:
>
> >> #370295
> >
> > Zac responded (comment #21) to my post in that bug with quite a
> > well-reasoned rationale. It makes interesting readin
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:51 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Mark Knecht did
> opine thusly:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Alan McKinnon
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> #370295
>> >
>> > Zac responded (comment #21) to my post in that bug with qu
Apparently, though unproven, at 23:39 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Mark Knecht did
opine thusly:
>I have no problem with saying someone needs to understand what less
> does. less isn't important. It's just the example at hand today. The
> 'problem' that I'm trying to get closer to answering is ho
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:38AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
> > depclean handling. It now shows this:
> >
> > !!! 'app-editors/nano' is part of your system profile.
> >
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:39:34 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>What I didn't like about this issue popping up yesterday is that it
> altered the idea that average users never touch anything in @system.
> Iin fact, TTBOMK I've never in 11 or 12 years of running Gentoo ever
> done an emerge -C on a @sys
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:08 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Walter Dnes
did opine thusly:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:38AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
>
> > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
> > > Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed something with system set and
>
Alan McKinnon wrote:
OK, now we're tracking.
In the specific case of less, the answer is self-evident - it isn't needed. A
dev would just know that. More likely, he would assume he knows that.
In the general case, they suck their thumbs and guess. Some think more than
others before they guess,
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 01:08 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Walter Dnes
did opine thusly:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:38AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:10 AM, Alan McKinnon
wrote:
Latest portage-2.2.0_alpha38 has changed
Apparently, though unproven, at 02:03 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Dale did
opine thusly:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Apparently, though unproven, at 01:08 on Wednesday 08 June 2011, Walter
> > Dnes
> >
> > did opine thusly:
> >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 05:55:38AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
> >>
> >
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 14:39:34 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
>> What I didn't like about this issue popping up yesterday is that it
>> altered the idea that average users never touch anything in @system.
>> Iin fact, TTBOMK I've never in 11 or 1
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 23:39 on Tuesday 07 June 2011, Mark Knecht did
> opine thusly:
>
>> I have no problem with saying someone needs to understand what less
>> does. less isn't important. It's just the example at hand today. The
Mark Knecht wrote:
That's what I thought until I moved to the kde profile, at which time
it seems to about 80% of kde-meta became part of @system. Prior to
switching to that profile I think @system as about 150 packages. Today
it's 389:
2stable ~ # emerge -epv @system
These are the packages tha
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> That's what I thought until I moved to the kde profile, at which time
>> it seems to about 80% of kde-meta became part of @system.
>
> I complained about KDE stuff being in the system set long ago. It is
> because of USE
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
That's what I thought until I moved to the kde profile, at which time
it seems to about 80% of kde-meta became part of @system.
I complained about KDE stuff being in the system set lo
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:20:57 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Forcing nano into @system goes against the whole idea of using
> > virtuals to specify required functionality, rather than requiring a
> > specific program.
> >
>
> That's what I thought until I moved to the kde profile, at which time
>
> I exaggerated. The number of kde packages pulled in on my compute
> server right now is about 10, so it's not as bad as I remember.
I have a bunch of systems (desktop and client) and none of them pull in
any KDE libs save one, which has kde-meta in the world file. Not even
my mythtv box, which
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
>
>> I exaggerated. The number of kde packages pulled in on my compute
>> server right now is about 10, so it's not as bad as I remember.
>
> I have a bunch of systems (desktop and client) and none of them pull in
> any KDE libs save one, which
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:09 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >> I exaggerated. The number of kde packages pulled in on my compute
> >> server right now is about 10, so it's not as bad as I remember.
> >
> > I have a bunch of systems (desktop and client) and none of them pull
> in
should have been "(des
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:09 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> And all of these machines are using the kde profile?
>
> Of course not. Why would you put a server (or anything else) in the kde
> profile unless you wanted to pull in KDE stuff?
The
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:37 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Then you missed the point of the thread.
Quite possibly.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Albert Hopkins wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 07:37 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> Then you missed the point of the thread.
>
> Quite possibly.
Actually, my comment was unfair and I apologize. If you didn't happen
to read every part of the thread then your point is v
30 matches
Mail list logo
