On 03/21/2018 05:59 PM, Manuel Rüger wrote:
> 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. :-)

Ok, glad to clarify. Thinking some more on the implications of your
question, it seems like you were thinking that packages matched by the
excluded set would somehow be magically eliminated from the dependency
graph? That's not how --ignore-world works at all. Things matched by
@world, @selected, @system, and their deep dependencies can still be
pulled into the dependency graph despite --ignore-world. The only
difference with --ignore-world is that @world is no longer an implicit
member of the dependency graph, so --complete-graph options will not
force @world into the dependency graph, and the packages given as
arguments will be the only root(s) of the dependency graph.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to