On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 06:20:25PM +0100, Dhruba Bandopadhyay wrote: > William Hubbs wrote: > >Here is an addition to this. > > > >I just ran your commands, and the only packages that were omitted by > >--deep were net-ftp/ftp and sys-apps/netkit-base. > > > >As I recall, these were part of the system profile at one time, but they > >have been removed. > > > >Is it possible that the qpkg -I -nc command is catching orphaned packages > >which are not in the world file, system profile, and are not a dependency > >of anything in either place? If that is the case, why would you need a > >package that is in that category? Or should a package in that category be > >added to the world file? > > That's interesting. Did they appear as updates (U) or new packages (N)? > If they appeared as updates then you must have them installed. > Otherwise, they would appear as new packages. My inclusion criterion is > simple. If it is installed include it in updates list when using this > new switch regardless of how they relate to other packages. If not > installed exclude it. I don't know how those two packages have been > included if they are not even on the system.
The packages were installed (they appeared as upgrades). The way I see it, an installed package can have 4 possible relationships to other packages on the system: 1) It is in the world file. (this is caught by your first command) 2) It is part of the system profile. (this is also caught by your first command) 3) It is a direct or indirect dependency of something in the world file or system profile. (also caught by your first command) 4) It isn't in the world file, system profile, and also it isn't a direct or indirect dependency of anything in either file. (your second command catches this). Do you agree? If that is the case, shouldn't packages that are caught by your second command and not the first be candidates for unmerging? What do you think? William -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
