On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:56:13AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 04:02:04PM +0300, Sideris Michael wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:08:33PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > > Don't waste too much time perfecting this. > > > > I do not. I am aware of the fact that this cannot be merged with the > > rest of system the way it is. But if there are any bugs I would like to > > fix them. > > > > > The right approach is to have pkg_add tag packages that the user really > > > installed vs. stuff that is needed for dependencies. It's in my queue > > > of things to do. > > > > Well, yeah. But the thing is that when you have a system with ~100 > > packages already installed how is this tagging technique going to work? > > In a fresh system I would totally agree with your approach. My way is > > more dynamic though. And you have to admit that it works quite fast as > > well. Anyway, it is merely a way of providing extra information for the > > packages you are planning to remove. So, until you implement your idea > > of tagging packages I will be using this. Whoever is going to use it > > though, send feedback whenever appropriate. > > And of course there are common situations that neither approach handles > very well. If I install openldap-server it will install openldap-client > as a dependancy. If I later uninstall openldap-server I may need to keep > openldap-client. Or not. So deleting package dependancies should not be > fully automated.
Good, you're on the right direction. > Perhaps in addition to pkg_add tagging as above, there could be a way to > manually tag packages as explicity installed... Go on, think a bit more, and you'll have the full design I just *sketched* overhead... ;-)
