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. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
