From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 12 01:54:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3382216A4CE for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:54:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE8443D2D for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:54:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from runaround.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA02839; Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:54:19 -0700 (MST) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook renders your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <6.2.0.14.2.20041211185002.05e6f928@localhost> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.0.14 Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:54:18 -0700 To: Lowell Gilbert , Chuck Swiger From: Brett Glass 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Un-GNOME-ing a FreeBSD box X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 01:54:28 -0000 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