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 1QJtgO-0006xQ-Pt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:37:29 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1721F1C053; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:36:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wy0-f181.google.com (mail-wy0-f181.google.com [74.125.82.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C006C1C053 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 20:36:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so6806701wyi.40 for ; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent :references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=Dt0e7gvRmElNjAzmvdIzmUE4Z2hktEOTPGlKKuDOgAo=; b=aRDo9QqcGxRVliezgGKJTBF6hpO7wIhuK7HIBYB05CtNh3DiIQsXUDYqWL6EXdAoAa 6kEujfGx55bfGMX+1Rnp0kXKpoAl/rdBTofaX3qMBocKLcf025I2U82ZUm/DB32Jopde dDwVYNMqn2Twaq2Rof9PAf54MYqm+Qzijtu7c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=wsgjK5eYR5h5knaoWfOiR6097SWrSyZnAgyrqzNXxSf2ymddu4eU6R341kbuQNiMql LHp/GcBlEnJp5TZLaS+hBup1x8R2JxHsUPgVmsDN98JrQ8YZ9bKjxVC+kJjHGFSvZyGF 9kzwToXCuytZjVrBMl6Zuax2lZA1X/CVPypss= Received: by 10.216.246.74 with SMTP id p52mr4475478wer.41.1305059766845; Tue, 10 May 2011 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g32sm3737919wej.3.2011.05.10.13.36.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 May 2011 13:36:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Prevent depclean from removing Python-2.6? Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:36:39 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.37-gentoo-r4; KDE/4.4.5; 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: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart100403861.pNsJhdKfsu"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105102136.41151.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 06c5b6cc7a261643fefd6f934792e7b4 --nextPart100403861.pNsJhdKfsu Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 10 May 2011 16:13:41 Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-05-10, Alan McKinnon wrote: > > Apparently, though unproven, at 16:40 on Tuesday 10 May 2011, Grant > > Edwards > >=20 > > did opine thusly: > >> I ran emerge --depclean the other day on one of my machines and it > >> removed Python 2.6. I was using Python 2.6 as my "default" python, > >> and depclean's removal of it broke a _lot_ of stuff. About a half > >> day's worth of hassle later I had Python 2.6 re-installed and my > >> system was again usable. > >>=20 > >> In order to avoid the same circus on my other machines, how do I > >> prevent emerge --depclean from removing Python 2.6? > >=20 > > Put that slot in world: > >=3Ddev-lang/python:2.6 > > > > I suppose there are better and more automagically elegant ways of doing > > it, but this works. >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > (you need to leave out the '=3D'). >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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... I am not sure I understand: If you eselect python 2.7 and run python-updater (and revdep-rebuild just i= n=20 case) I would think that you *should* have a working system. Unless some=20 particular package is hardcoded to use 2.6 things should not really break. Am I wrong here? =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart100403861.pNsJhdKfsu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk3JodkACgkQVTDTR3kpaLY+WACfTG5RzBi4bAoY/LEK+yI2+SXD 7uwAoPJdRdRQfJFwxbaOxJp4Uh6lK324 =vb70 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart100403861.pNsJhdKfsu--