On 22.03.2018 01:25, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/19/2018 09:49 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
>> Hi Zac,
>> alternatively could --exclude be extended to support sets?
>> So users could --exclude @world or @profile.
> Your idea doesn't really fit the current meaning of --exclude, since
> --exclude excludes packages from being merged, but still adds installed
> instances to the dependency graph in order to ensure that their
> dependencies remain satisfied.
Thanks for providing the clarification, now I have a better
understanding what both approaches do and withdraw my suggestion for
this patch. :-)

> I'd question the usefulness of a finer-grained approach that you're
> suggesting. I don't foresee people wanting to fiddle around with which
> package sets they want to ignore, and I wouldn't encourage them to do so.
> The intention of the --ignore-world option is to say, "I only care about
> the packages that I'm specifying in the emerge arguments, do anything
> necessary to install them." In this sort of situation, I think a person
> generally wants to ignore everything except the given packages and their
> dependencies, because they don't want to do a bunch of fiddling to
> figure out which sets they'd need to exclude in order to avoid
> conflicts. If they want to fiddle with something, they are free to
> adjust their package set configuration, so why wouldn't they?
> Anyway, I'm not necessarily opposed to adding a finer grained
> --ignore-set option. However, it would be more work, it would be more
> complex, and I wouldn't advise anyone to use it.
> If people want to automate something in a disposable system, or they're
> in a position to use --ask and check the result for sanity, then I think
> --ignore-world is a good solution.
> If people want something that's safe to use on a production system, then
> I'll advise them to manually adjust their package set configuration.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to