> Your initial discussion did not relate to my bug at all.
Yes, it did. It explained, in fact, exactly why this happens. It may have
been too verbose or basic for you, but again, I have no idea how much you
know about how Portage works, and you don't seem to have read it at all.
It's possible that I was wrong (it always is) but if I am I would appreciate
you telling me so.

> > But, you ask, how do I get rid of them? That's what dep-clean is for.
It's
> I did not ask this.
It's a rhetorical technique. You don't need to take it literally.

> Of course not.  I'm suggesting adding a switch to portage which gives
> you the option to use it or not use it.
I was attempting to explain why, by default, Portage doesn't try to update
these packages.

> > So, now to address your bug entry.
> > /var/db/pkg/category/package/{,R,P}DEPEND files. Either way, unless I've
> > misunderstood, it's already available in one way or another.
>
> There is no method available currently in portage to achieve the same
> effect as [2] in the bug.
I gave you one in the line you snipped. Again, if it doesn't work, I'd like
it if you told me why instead of ignoring me. And you haven't at all
explained what this extra "deps" file is intended to do. Why can't I just do
"find" in /var/db/pkg to get this information?

> > Finally, there are plenty of things in Gentoo that de facto require a
tool
> > to do them right. There's ufed, mirrorselect, and etc-update. I don't
see
> > why qpkg shouldn't be part of that list if you really, really want to
update
> > all these packages.
>
> Well, the reason is simple.  This is, the way I see it, base
> functionality.  It is extending --deep to include the full map of
> packages.  And this is why it requires due attention from the parent
> package.
No, it is forcing Portage to include packages that have *no reason* to be on
your system. I would prefer it got rid of them altogether, rather than
updating them. But that's hard.

> Thanks for feedback.
I would appreciate it if you went back and reread what I wrote, because I
thought I addressed the problem fairly completely.
-Heschi


--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list

Reply via email to