Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:54:18 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org>, Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Un-GNOME-ing a FreeBSD box Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20041211185002.05e6f928@localhost> In-Reply-To: <44k6ro5m2u.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <6.2.0.14.2.20041211162451.05b17c98@localhost> <41BB87FB.7090700@mac.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20041211165724.05a6a2d0@localhost> <41BB8D71.6040801@mac.com> <44k6ro5m2u.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 06:42 PM 12/11/2004, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >That isn't supposed to happen. If another port has X11 listed as a >dependency, "make deinstall" would have said so and refused to remove >it.. Which, by the way, is what the owner of the machine is seeing. He's listed the ports that were installed by running pkg_info, and is laboriously visiting each one's directory and trying to do a "make deinstall". But it's refusing to delete things due to dependency issues. I'm not sure, but I'll bet that the dependencies here aren't a clean, hierarchical tree but rather more of a "web". If there's a circular dependency, he's stuck. Again, I really find it hard to believe that there would be no provision for deleting a port AND the ports on which it depends cleanly. I tend to use a minimal number of ports and packages, and so didn't realize that this was such a difficult thing until now. --Brett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.2.0.14.2.20041211185002.05e6f928>