From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QJot2-0002yi-8F for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:30:12 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3C38E1C0A6; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:27:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E06F01C0A6 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 15:27:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy8 with SMTP id 8so2257531ewy.40 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 08:27:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :message-id; bh=xCAWPhdQD3OJ+lFeRuUxrgvntXwpiJlFtxATueXjF/Y=; b=kgM/AspwVy0M+l/VyAWQiQvXPmpYKgK83ST8lANbl6FcLAS2HrzeEMVj1vz0m0XIR2 M78ZsmivyZNR9b+hrT5L2HW9UP5xatyqo9k2J4CNhnBWE5XpyESc1KLdyxhZhW1c8A6y kuojPE6Z40Mh2Gx0bq4jIOAbGEMHF4YSvmFkU= 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:message-id; b=Zl59bDLGcgHtdeOITP/O92usvD/16WjBhimnfT/FjlAT8C0eMLT4INQbIuAgqMfml8 vgUpV9G2z81YntfOFhLfjGOjT6pqWJzAOHchJkyHW7C1O/hjFARKiZ+aancNCQjsXkOv bJNBrLeOVAcB3kTyvJL5YhLYjAePs6C1bTdp0= Received: by 10.213.1.144 with SMTP id 16mr1698573ebf.113.1305041266820; Tue, 10 May 2011 08:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-215-114-244.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.215.114.244]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 46sm4384862ees.25.2011.05.10.08.27.44 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 May 2011 08:27:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Prevent depclean from removing Python-2.6? Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 17:26:55 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.38-ck; KDE/4.6.3; x86_64; ; ) References: <201105101653.35456.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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 Message-Id: <201105101726.56480.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a33057285cd7ebc4a0c81a689584d9b4 Apparently, though unproven, at 17:13 on Tuesday 10 May 2011, Grant Edwards did opine thusly: > > I think the issue happens because portage does not take eselect > > choices into account when building it's dep graph, it only uses the > > DEPENDS in ebuilds. > > Apparently so. It seems like it ought to pay attention to eselect. > If I've explicitly configured my system to use 2.6 instead of 2.7, > removing 2.6 doesn't seem like a good thing... There's one more wrinkle though: portage, ebuilds and EAPI are all portable to other systems (funtoo etc) whereas eselect is very gentoo-specific. So putting gentooism support into portage would be counter-productive. A real solution would require some kind of generic statement in ebuilds that would allow for optional dependencies. I haven't thought this completely through, but maybe something like the following: - A new keyword in ebuilds to indicate packages with soft deps - A new file format that lists these deps currently in use - Tools like eselect could update this file as they adjust user preferences This way, portage would have additional info available about unusual packages still in use when --depclean runs. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com