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 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GeCAI-0008RW-B7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:01:34 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9TEvsfG007366; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:57:55 GMT Received: from hotmail1.netcop.nl (hotmail1.netcop.nl [194.109.204.36]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9TEtiFd029720 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:55:44 GMT X-Virus-Scanned: Message was scanned for viruses by NetCop Mailscan (http://mailscan.netcop.nl/) Received: from [192.168.0.242] (ip565712b1.direct-adsl.nl [86.87.18.177]) by hotmail1.netcop.nl (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9TEtdr7006586 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:55:41 +0100 Message-ID: <4544C0EB.7070003@rootsr.com> Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:55:39 +0100 From: Hans de Hartog User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20061005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc problems after dep -d References: <4543257D.2010404@rootsr.com> <200610282211.02108.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <4544B7F0.4010906@rootsr.com> <200610291538.11622.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> In-Reply-To: <200610291538.11622.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by robin.gentoo.org id k9TEvsfi007366 X-Archives-Salt: 685cff8a-b6bc-48b5-b179-e9c84c68c294 X-Archives-Hash: 72cd46a13c08d68a059ae0ff21fd1357 Bo =D8rsted Andresen wrote: > [SNIP] >=20 > Ugh..! You've got this completely wrong. As of >=3Dportage-2.1.1=20 > `emerge --depclean` is quite safe (yet you still need to use --ask=20 > or --pretend as with any other emerge operation!) and it has always tak= en the=20 > use flags into account. I've never said anything about the reliability = of=20 > `dep -d` (as I've never tried it and don't plan to try it either) and I= think=20 > your experience goes to show that it is far from as safe as=20 > `emerge --depclean`. I'm pretty sure that `emerge --depclean` would nev= er=20 > remove gcc... >=20 > `equery depends` is what I've said doesn't take your use flags into acc= ount=20 > (and it doesn't). This means that if `equery depends` says foo doesn't = need=20 > bar then foo doesn't need bar. But if it says foo needs bar then there = is the=20 > possibility that due to the state of some use flag foo doesn't need bar= on=20 > your system... That is entirely unrelated to the reliability of=20 > `emerge --depclean`. This only relates to querying for reverse dependen= cies=20 > with equery. >=20 > And for querying for reverse dependencies `dep -L` is quite reliable. A= s is=20 > pquery from pkgcore and adjutrix from paludis. That says nothing about = the=20 > reliability of `dep -d`, `dep -w` or `dep -s` etc. I don't know if eith= er of=20 > those other options for dep are reliable or not (and quite frankly I do= n't=20 > care as I don't need them). IMO `emerge --depclean` is doing and excell= ent=20 > job! >=20 Thank you very much for your clear explanation! I learned a lot from it. And my system is compiling again :-) --=20 gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list