From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1L0N3Z-0001SQ-0F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:15:21 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D44BE05AF; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:12:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (ey-out-1920.google.com [74.125.78.148]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8995E05AE for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so239257eyk.10 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:12:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=OVEoJyg4nQUPCF8csqAoOaGMMpWyaD/ZWcH654SclKk=; b=TTWWzYTOv5Yindl18oEQ0ELjUDoBVlFTceHNNjy5s9GOJjSZf/RH/e3CxAGtkuK0JV VNnIwKG1sMvfGvhh34DicOAHoKFeyVRg/weW1nyEKfY6WnL+nbfiDCqAKfpKApOgwnUD ld3uZ8EiZ61zcW8TGgERLJulfnXBa6f8tiLMA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=jDZv+LQpbnYJUxOV6ArIvfvilJlU6tMLLjwvtmBdKPzklPRdcJdzU+If8HCpqbDlGX LEx+c28P4/OW4FgA6qW2mibSvh9u7qnTkc8JEUyXlU+s4jgeYfQtuXFzdduJiwOmUhuY 4awts3snzZc1uCbagqil6BvPsJyRLUeoSfr74= Received: by 10.210.111.4 with SMTP id j4mr10698575ebc.170.1226524364227; Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:12:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.0.0.5? (dsl-243-208-133.telkomadsl.co.za [41.243.208.133]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i6sm12154626gve.2.2008.11.12.13.12.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:12:42 -0800 (PST) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Is equery depends still viable Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:12:32 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: <87prl0n21n.fsf@newsguy.com> In-Reply-To: <87prl0n21n.fsf@newsguy.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811122312.32111.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: b828b56a-d724-4272-85be-a17edea2bd8a X-Archives-Hash: 028f1806b5bf993efeff19744846956c On Wednesday 12 November 2008 22:04:52 Harry Putnam wrote: > With recent changes in portage in the last few mnths, is equery in > general and `equery depends' in particular still reliable? I use it fairly often still, but do notice I get a lot of null output. So I no longer trust it fully. At least it doesn't give false positives - what's in the putput really is a valid depend. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com