From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ECG8G-0002Pv-4u for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:31:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85CRSU3015315; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:27:28 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j85CNmEq004567 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:23:48 GMT Received: from zh034160.ppp.dion.ne.jp ([222.3.34.160] helo=opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1ECG3s-0000lS-CA for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:26:56 +0000 Received: by opteron246.suzuki-stubbs.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D786A102DC1; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:27:55 +0900 (JST) From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] why is Joe part of 'system' ? Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:27:53 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.90 References: <20050904143004.GB7622@sympatico.ca> <200509052036.45816.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <431C2F93.3010701@planet.nl> In-Reply-To: <431C2F93.3010701@planet.nl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart6331833.NxWp3I70rk"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200509052127.55693.jstubbs@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: d7d40222-4be1-46ff-a1f0-6a138663076e X-Archives-Hash: 3c8df6225e464e92f6b9592884c55481 --nextPart6331833.NxWp3I70rk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 05 September 2005 20:44, Holly Bostick wrote: > Jason Stubbs schreef: > > /var/cache/edb/virtuals is a relic from 2.0.50. In that big message > > displayed at the end of merging any of the 2.0.51 series that nobody > > reads, it states that virtuals are now calculated on the fly. > > So I could delete the whole file without consequence? Yes. > And OK, doesn't that mean that someone should submit an enhancement bug > to b.g.o indicating that Portage should check whether you are emerging > *one of* the packages that provides a given virtual, or whether you're > unmerging *the only* package that provides a virtual (similar to the > previous SLOTS issue)? > > Maybe it's time to start cleaning up 'big scary messages' that alarm > users unnecessarily (because unmerging Joe in this instance is not going > to break anything, but there are instances where it might, yet the > message does not distinguish one way or another). I've already posted a patch to gentoo-dev@g.o for feedback as the issue cam= e=20 up there as well. Apparently there was another dev that was aware of the=20 issue, but he never spoke up and I have not seen any bugs with regard to=20 this either. Maybe it's time to start reporting? =2D-=20 Jason Stubbs --nextPart6331833.NxWp3I70rk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDHDnLxvWNPsk/ZP4RAhm+AJ91jlPoKDo5Bnkzk5VZFUk0Nu3tgwCggaHI eA4KCP2kuH7ERv8Z1ILrDik= =MY2y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6331833.NxWp3I70rk-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list